530176501
          GUIDELINES
  FOR STRTE AND AREAWIDE
WATER QUALITY mANAGEmENT
   PROGRAm DEVELOPfflENT
33
\
                 \
                  UJ
                  C3
   U.S. ENYIRONmENTRLPROTEQION AGENCY
        WASHINGTON, D.C. 2O46O
           NOVEmBER1976

-------
                          GUIDELINES

                             for

STATE AND AREAWIDE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
              ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                  WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                      NOVEMBER 1976

-------
                         FOREWORD
     Final regulations dealing with the State continuing planning
process policies and procedures (40 CFR 130) and the preparation of
State and designated areawide water quality management plans (40 CFR
131) were published in the Federal Register on November 28, 1975.
Regulations for obtaining grants for planning (40 CFR Part 35 Sub-
part A) were also published on November 28, 1975 and October 4, 1976.

     These regulations require that the States assume responsibility
for preparation of water quality management plans for the entire
State—directly in nondesignated areas and indirectly in designated
areas through coordination with areawide agencies.  In addition, the
regulations set forth the required elements which State and designated
areawide agencies are to include in their water quality management
programs.

     These guidelines, which are interim final, are intended to be used
by State and designated areawide agencies in developing implementable
water quality management programs consistent with the requirements set
forth in the regulations.  While it is not possible for EPA to provide
answers to all the water quality problems that should be resolved,
these guidelines describe the overall factors which should be taken
into account and provide a framework for agencies to use in developing
their water quality management programs.

     In February 1976, Draft Guidelines for State and Areawide Water
Quality Management Program Development were issued.  The draft guidelines
were based extensively on the Guidelines for Areawide Waste Treatment
Management Planning (August 1975) which had received widespread distri-
bution and review.  In addition, a request for comments was made in the
draft guidelines of which approximately 6,000 copies have been distributed.
These interim final guidelines reflect the majority of comments which have
been received on the draft guidelines.

     Comments on these interim final guidelines are still requested and
should be addressed to the Water Planning Division (WH-554), Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.  20460.  A formal notice requesting
comments will be placed in the Federal Register in the near future.  These
guidelines will be issued as final in the spring of 1977.  Based on the
comments received on the draft guidelines, we expect that the final
guidelines will not differ substantially from these interim final guide-
lines.  As a result, State and areawide agencies and other interested
individuals and groups should rely on these^guidelines in the preparation
of their water quality management plans,
                                       '/
                                                                 JK.J

                                Andrew W. Breidenbach
                                Assistant Administrator
                                for Water and Hazardous Materials

-------
                      TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.    Introduction
     1.1   Purpose
     1.2   Applicability
     1.3   Timing
     1.4   Objectives
     1.5   Output Requirements
     1.6   Overview

2.    Continuing Planning Process Development and Approval
     2.1   Purpose
     2.2   Major Stages
     2.3   Detailed Guidance on Required Process Elements

3.    State Water Quality Management Plan Development
     3.1   Scope and Purpose
     3.2   Program Objectives
     3.3   Program Content
     3.4   Planning Criteria
     3.5   Planning Sequence
     3.6   Technical Planning
     3.7   Management Planning
     3.8   Combined Plan Evaluation and Selection
     3.9   Plan Outputs
     3.10 Submission Procedures

4.    Public Participation
     4.1   Introduction
     4.2   Public Participation Program Development
     4.3   A Model Program for Public Involvement
     4.4   Institutional Alternatives for Representation of
          the General Public
     4.5   Program Evaluation
     4.6   Advisory Committee

5.    Water Quality Standards Revision
     5.1   Introduction
     5.2   Water Uses
     5.3   Water Quality Criteria
     5.4   Antidegredation
     5.5   Mixing Zones
     5.6   Thermal Water Quality Standards
     5.7   Water Quality Related Effluent Limitations Under
          Section 302 of the Act
     5.8  Stream Flows
     5.9   Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material
     5.10 Groundwater
     5.11 State Water Quality Standards Review
          and Revision Procedures

-------
6.   Land Use Considerations
     6.1  Introduction
     6.2  Develop Area Subplans through Land Use Analysis

7.   Nonpoint Source Management Considerations
     7.1  Introduction
     7.2  Statutory Requirements and EPA Policy
     7.3  Planning Methods for Selection of Best Management Practices

8.   Point Source Considerations
     8.1  Introduction
     8.2  Planning Approach for Point Sources
     8.3  Municipal Wastewater Facilities
     8.4  Other Point Sources
     8.5  Combined Sewer Discharges
     8.6  Industrial Wastewater
     8.7  Development of Alternative Subplans

9.   Management Responsibilities and Institutional Arrangements
     9.1  Introduction
     9.2  General Management Responsibilities
     9.3  Regulatory Program
     9.4  Waste Treatment Program
     9.5  Basic Issues in Management Agency Designation

10.  Financial Arrangements
     10.1 Introduction
     10.2 Requirements of the Act
     10.3 Development of Financial Plans
     10.4 Budget Preparation and Supporting Documentation

11.  Cost Assessment Considerations
     11.1 Introduction
     11.2 Basic Concepts in Estimating Costs
     11.3 Specific Cost Questions
     11.4 Generalized Cost Estimation

12.  Techniques for Coordination
     12.1 Introduction
     12.2 Coordination Techniques

13.  Environmental, Social, and Economic Impact Evaluation
     13.1 Purpose
     13.2 Environmental, Social, and Economic Impact
          Evaluation Process
     13.3 Environmental Effects of Selected Plan

14.  Comparison of Alternatives and Selection of Plan
     14.1 Purpose
     14.2 The Plan Selection Process

Appendices

Guidelines Supplements:
No.  1.   Best Management Practices for  Nonpoint Sources

-------
                              CHAPTER 1

                            INTRODUCTION
1.1  Purpose

     The purpose of these guidelines is to assist the States in setting
up a management program and institutional  arrangements to integrate
water quality and other resource management decisions.  The central
purpose of this management program is the  development and implementation
of State Water Quality Management Plans so that the longer range goals
of the Federal Water Pollution Control  Act Amendments of 1972 can be
met.  To achieve these goals, it will be necessary to develop a water
quality management process at the State and local level  that assures
continuous planning for and implementation of pollution  control measures.
These guidelines present a suggested framework for developing water
quality management plans.  The management  plans should be directed to
meet two principal mandates of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972:  (1) the determination of effluent limitations
needed to meet applicable water quality standards including the requirement
to at least maintain existing water quality (Section 303); and (2)
development of State and areawide management programs to implement abate-
ment measures for all pollutant sources (Section 208).

1.2  Applicability

     These guidelines are directed toward  State agencies responsible for
developing a continuing planning process and State or areawide agencies*
responsible for developing State Water Quality Management Plans.  Since
the States may delegate their responsibilities to local, regional, sub-
state, interstate, and federal agencies to develop and implement part of
their water programs, these guidelines also apply to these other governmental
entities.

1.3  Ti mi ng

     All States have developed a continuing planning process consistent
with Section 303(e) of the Act.  As part of the process, the States sub-
mitted Phase I Water Quality Management Plans by July 1, 1975 (or have
been given an additional extension of up to one year by the EPA Regional
Administrator to submit such plans).  Phase I plans are directed toward
setting out effluent limitations needed by point sources to meet existing
State water quality standards.
*Agencies tnat naveTeen designated and have received planning grants
 prior to July 1, 1975, should continue to follow the Guidelines for
 Areawide Waste Treatment Management Planning, August 1975, and their
 approved project control plans.
                                 1-1

-------
     These guidelines pertain to the second phase of implementation of
the effluent limitations and water quality standards requirements of the
Act.  In Phase II, States must consider revisions to water quality
standards to achieve the national  water quality goal specified in Sec-
tion 101(a)(2) of the Act.  Plans  to meet these goals must be developed
and should consider all  available  means to meet water quality standards
including effluent limitations for point sources and management of
nonpoint sources.

     While Phase II planning is a  logical outgrowth of existing State
Water Quality Management Plans, the long-term goals to be achieved
through Phase II plans and the complexity of resolving pollution problems
from both point and nonpoint sources may require a State to amend its
existing management program to ensure proper coordination among the
various components of its water program.  Decisions regarding organizational
responsibility for completing Phase II Plans should be contained in the
State/EPA Agreement (§130.11) including the proposed designation of
areawide planning agencies to undertake certain elements of Phase II
Plans.  An even greater need may exist to consider how the State's
management program for water quality can be complemented by and support
other resource management programs in the State.  In addition to organiza-
tional and program management revisions to the State's continuing planning
process, the State Water Quality Management Plans themselves may require
substantial changes to meet the longer term goals of the Act and to
develop abatement programs for all pollutant sources.

     The timetable of some of the  more important dates in Phase II is as
follows:
     -  November 28, 1975


     -  January 27, 1976



     -  April 26, 1976
     -  April 26, 1976
Promulgation of 40 CFR Parts
130, 131

Identification of areas
eligible for designation
under Section 208(a)(2)-(4)

Continuing planning process
revisions submitted to Regional
Administrator (by this date
Governors should have indicated
final determination of areas to
be designated under Section
208(a)(2)-(4))

Complete documentation of
areawide planning area designa-
tions to be submitted to
Regional Administrator
                                   1-2

-------
     -  July 1, 1976
     -  November 1, 1978
     -  November 1, 1978
1.4  Objectives
Phase I Water Quality Management
Plans due where extensions have
been granted

State WQM Plans due for final
submission (including portions
of State WQM Plan delegated
to areawide or other planning
agencies)

Governors designate management
agencies to implement the plans
     The overall objective of the Act is to "restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters"
(Section 101(a)).  To achieve this objective, "it is the national goal
that wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which provides
for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and
provides for recreation inand on the water be achieved by July 1, 1983"
(Section 101(a)(2)).  To enable meeting the Act's objectives, "it is the
national policy that areawide waste treatment management planning processes
be developed and implemented to assure adequate control of sources of
pollutants in each State" (Section 101(a)(5)).

     The objective of the State's continuing planning process is to
establish a management program and arrive at implementation decisions
contained in State Water Quality Management Plans and other plans prepared
pursuant to the Act to meet the 1983 water quality goal, wherever
attainable.

1.5  Output Requirements

     The required outputs of the State continuing planning process are
summarized in 40 CFR §130.10(a)-(c).  Guidance on how to develop a con-
tinuing planning process to meet these requirements is presented in
Chapter 2.

     The required outputs of State Water Quality Management Plans are
stated in Part 131.11(a)-(p).  An interpretation of specific outputs
that might be needed to meet these requirements is found in Chapter 3.
The States and other agencies carrying out planning responsibilities
pursuant to Parts 130 and 131 are encouraged to use whatever planning
procedures best suit their needs.  The planning procedures discussed in
Chapters 3 through 14 restate the requirements of Parts 130 and 131 and
provide some possible approaches for developing State Water Quality
Management Plans.
                                 1-3

-------
1.6  Overview of the Continuing Planning Process and State Water Quality
     Management PI an Devel opment

     The following is a summary (with simplified examples) of how the
State might develop its continuing planning process and Water Quality
Management Program:

     A-  Continuing PIanning Process

         Developing a continuing planning process entails a series of
     steps in which information is gathered on existing water quality
     programs and decisions are made regarding how to adapt existing
     programs to the longer term objectives of the Act.  These steps
     might be conducted as follows:

         1.  Process Design

             The first step is the determination of the agency to be
         responsible for developing the continuing planning process.
         Once this agency is chosen by the Governor, it should develop an
         overall design of a process to meet the requirements of 40 CFR
         Part 130.   This involves definition of how the State's existing
         water program will be modified to meet Phase II requirements.
         The initial process design will be further refined as each
         component of the process (described below) is developed in
         greater detail.

             Example:  The Governor has designated the State water quality
         agency to be responsible for the State's continuing planning
         process.  The State water quality agency has begun to array a
         description of the existing water program, its elements, and
         their relationships against a listing of changes needed to meet
         the revised requirements for a continuing planning process.  The
         State agency has separated its process design into the following
         functional headings:  inputs to the process (including existing
         programs related to water quality, public participation, and
         intergovernmental input); development of a State Strategy to
         meet Phase II requirements; development of a State/EPA Agreement
          (including areawide planning area designation and planning delega-
         tions); preparation of water quality management plans; and revision
         of standards.  The State agency has assigned personnel to further
         develop each of these components of the process.
                                   1-4
                                                                                 I

-------
2.  Define Inputs to the Process

    The next step in developing the continuing planning process
is to define the relationship among existing water program
activities and between water programs and other environmental
and resource management programs.  At this step, the mechanisms
by which local government and the general public will participate
in formulating and carrying out the State's water program should
also be defined.

    Example:  The State has first classified its water program
into the following categories:  (1) program management, (2) stand-
ards setting, (3) plan development - analytic phase (this refers
to water quality analyses and setting of effluent limits to meet
standards), and (4) plan implementation mechanisms (these would
include Section 402 permits, detailed facility planning and
construction grants, and regulatory programs and implementing
agencies required by Section 208).  The interrelation of these
aspects of the State's water program has been defined.  The
State Water Quality Management Plan provides the basic framework
for setting water quality goals and making decisions which are
implemented through the permit program, and provides design
parameters for further facility planning and construction grants.

    For each of the above water program categories, the State
agency has identified the programs that should be coordinated
with particular activities.  For example, major environmental
and resource management programs such as the air and solid waste
programs, Coastal Zone Management Program, HUD 701 Program, and
Federal land management activities should be coordinated with
the water quality program at the stage of program design.

    In terms of standards setting, there may be special relation-
ships with other programs that involve designation of land and
water for particular uses, e.g., the Coastal Zone Management
Program, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Federal land management
activities, etc.  Plan development and implementation should be
coordinated with corresponding phases of other environmental
and resource management programs.

    In order to seek involvement of the public as a whole in its
water program, the State has developed a public participation
program which consists of seminars and meetings on the State's
overall management program and more extensive interaction with
the public in each area in which water quality management plans
are developed.
                          1-5

-------
    Finally, the State has developed a Policy Advisory
Committee with representation of local elected officials.   This
Board oversees the State's management program.  Similar local
advisory groups have been set up for each planning area within
the State.

3.  State Strategy

    The State Strategy should indicate the State's general
approach to solving water quality problems and resource needs
to carry out the approach.

    Example:  The State has indicated two general  water quality
problem situations:  (1) complex pollution problems in urban
areas involving many pollution parameters and many categories
of sources and (2) specific problems involving a lesser number
of pollution parameters and readily identifiable categories of
pollution sources.  The State has indicated that the complex
problems require integrated planning for all.pollution sources.
Because of the important role of local government in resolving
complex pollution problems, the State intends to designate these
areas as areawide planning areas under Section 208(a)(2)-(4)
of the Act.  The State will conduct planning and implementation
activities in other areas of the State.   The resource needs for
planning in these areas are also indicated.

4.  Preparation of State/EPA Agreement

    This stage of the process involves determining specific
planning areas and tasks, agencies responsible for the tasks,
including designation of areawide planning areas and agencies,
and a timetable for planning.

    Example:  The State has already designated three urban areas
for areawide planning.  However, it was necessary in the State/
EPA Agreement to spell out a more precise division of responsi-
bilities for monitoring, wasteload allocation development and
review by the State, coordination with further facility planning,
and many other planning relationships.  The State proposes to
designate two more areas for areawide planning and has indicated in
the State/EPA Agreement the planning tasks that would be carried
out by the State and designated agencies in such areas.  The State
has also indicated the planning tasks to be carried out by the
State water quality agency with the cooperation of other State and
Federal agencies.
                          1-6

-------
5.  Revision of Standards

    The State should Indicate where present stream use classifi-
cations may require revision to protect existing instream water
quality and where it is proposed that currently designated uses be
upgraded to meet longer term water quality goals.   In each case,
appropriate criteria should be developed to be included in standards
revisions, and the proposed revisions should be evaluated through the
process of developing State Water Quality Management Plans to
implement the standards.

    Example:  The State has proposed to include toxics and phos-
phorus under its standards for waters supporting warm water fisheries
and to increase the stringency of the standard for total  dissolved
solids in waters classified as cold water fisheries to provide
greater protection of trout during spawning.  In addition, the State
has chosen a design condition for wet weather flows and will  initiate
a monitoring program to determine whether standards are being vio-
lated under wet weather flows.  Furthermore, the State has proposed
that high quality waters in certain parts of the State be maintained
at existing water quality levels and has proposed standards reflec-
tive of these levels.  To meet longer term water quality objectives,
the State has proposed for certain areas of the State an upgrading
of designated uses from waters that provide maintenance of certain
fisheries to waters that support propagation of this fishery, as
well as body contact recreation.

6.  Preparation of State Water Quality Management Programs

    Responsibilities for preparing State Water Quality Management
Plans should be indicated in the State/EPA Agreement.  After
portions of the State Water Quality Management Plan are completed,
implementing agencies should be designated to carry out the
plan.

    Example:  Certain portions of the State Water Quality
Management Plan have been completed by existing designated
areawide planning agencies.  The State has designated implementing
agencies pursuant to Section 208(a)(2) to carry out these plan
elements.

7.  Planning Process Review and Revision

    States are required to review their continuing planning process
annually and make revisions if necessary.
                           1-7

-------
        Example:   The State has reviewed its existing planning
    process description and revised the process description in
    accordance with the changes needed to meet Phase II  requirements.
    The State has held public hearings on the revised process
    description.

B.  State Water Quality Management Program Development

    This guideline suggests a sequence of steps which may be followed
to develop the plan elements required in Part 131  regulations.  The
following is a simplified version of these steps accompanied by
some examples of how the steps might apply to typical pollution
problems in urbanized portions of a State:

    1.  Identify Problems In Meeting 1983 Goals of the Act

        The pollution problems should be identified in terms of
    their relative impact on water quality.   Similarly,  existing
    institutional problems impeding solution of water quality
    problems should be identified.

        Example:   To meet the 1983 goals of water suitable for
    fishing and swimming may require high levels of abatement for
    municipal and industrial point sources as well as nonpoint
    sources.  Municipal and industrial point sources may present
    the worst problem under low flow stream conditions.   It may be
    necessary to provide higher than national base level treatment
    for these sources in order to meet water quality standards.  In
    the process of upgrading treatment for existing municipal
    sewage treatment plants and constructing new plants, the location
    of discharge points is an important variable affecting water
    quality.  Treatment plant collection systems also influence
    where development will occur, which affects nonpoint source
    runoff.  Finally, the design of treatment systems will need to
    include options for utilizing or disposing of the residual by-
    product of the treatment process.

        Even after the point source problem has been solved, it is
    likely that rainfall-related sources of pollution such as urban
    runoff may cause severe stress on aquatic life due to the heavy
    metals and toxic substances washed into the stream.
                              1-8

-------
    In terms of institutional problems, the fragmented and
small treatment works authorities in the area would have to
join together to upgrade treatment levels to meet the 1983
goals.  In addition, a management agency or agencies may need
to be designated to establish a nonpoint source and residual
waste management program, including local adoption of ordinances
to require "best management practices" for various nonpoint
source pollution generating activities.

2.  Identify Constraints and Priorities

    Both technical and management constraints on meeting 1983
water quality goals should be identified.  Priorities for
solving water quality problems should be established.

    Example:  From a technical standpoint, there may be reaches
of streams in the area that cannot meet the 1983 goal.  The
goal may not be attainable, if a technological solution, for
example, dredging sludge deposits from a river, would cause as
many long term water quality problems as allowing the deposits
to be naturally flushed out of the river over time.  The development
of State Water Quality Management Plans should provide information
to help the State determine its policy on revision of water
quality standards.  A management constraint may be a lack of
financial capacity to deal with a long standing problem such as
drainage from abandoned mines.  Priorities should focus on
problems that can be most effectively solved within existing
technological and economic capabilities.  For example, renovating
urban stormwater systems may be a low priority due to the high
capital costs.  On the other hand, establishing a treatment
works program may be a very high priority.  The State Water
Quality Management Plan should specify a number of interim
outputs such as service areas and treatment levels to provide
an areawide perspective in further facilities planning.

3.  Identify Possible Solutions to Problems

    All reasonable regulatory and management control methods
to reduce pollution to an acceptable level should be identified.
                          1-9

-------
    Example:  Based on the State's existing and proposed water
quality standards, a determination should be made of the levels
of pollutant loading to streams that would not violate water
quality standards.  To meet the pollutant loading constraints
for industrial  and municipal  sources, it may be necessary to
consider larger regional treatment plants or pretreatment of
industrial wastes prior to discharge to a municipal  facility.
However, the technical solution of a large regional  treatment
plant must also be feasible from an institutional standpoint.
This would require preliminary analysis of management agency(s)
and institutional arrangements for implementing a particular
technical solution.  Similarly, in the case of nonpoint sources,
the overall feasibility of managing a particular problem should
be investigated before the details of possible management
practices are developed.  For example, if improved street
sweeping is thought to be an  option for mitigating impact of
urban stormwater, the practicality of changing parking schedules
should be assessed from the outset.  The regulatory measures
for establishing "best management practices" for other nonpoint
sources should also be identified.  The authority for regulating
certain activities (agricultural practices or mining) may not
exist at the local level, and would therefore not be feasible
unless enabling legislation were passed.

4.  Develop Alternative Plans to Meet Statutory Requirements

    Alternative technical abatement methods for municipal and
industrial wastes, stormwater, nonpoint sources and residual
waste, for both new and existing sources should be combined
into areawide plans.  Comparable alternatives for the implemen-
tation of the technical options through establishing waste
management programs and regulatory programs should be identified.

    Example:  The technical alternatives for municipal and
industrial wastes might include options for regionalization of
treatment for municipal and industrial wastes, separate systems,
or upgrading existing municipal systems.  Waste treatment capa-
cities of these alternatives  should correspond to the projected
land development pattern in the area.  The residual  waste disposal
options would vary depending  on the choice of treatment systems.
Alternative management programs for construction, operation, and
maintenance of the treatment works would have to be developed and
include consideration of the financial arrangements for the local
share of construction, the financing of operations and maintenance,
                          1-10

-------
and cost recovery and user charges.  These assessments need
only be as specific as the degree of detail undertaken in the
State Water Quality Management Plan.  The design parameters for
facility planning developed in the State Water Quality Management
Plan should be followed in detailed facility planning prior to
award of construction grants.

    Technical alternatives for managing nonpoint sources might
include a series of alternative designs for attenuating the
runoff from new urbanized areas, as well as alternative manage-
ment practices for existing nonpoint sources in categories such
as agriculture or mining.  The management programs for implementing
the design criteria for new stormwater and drainage systems would
require proper enabling legislation, an agency capable of supervis-
ing the construction of new drainage systems, and adequate incentives
such as tax advantages for adopting the management practices.

5.  Analyze alternative plans

    The alternatives should be evaluated according to the criteria
of minimizing overall costs, maintaining environmental, social,
and economic values, and assuring adequate management authority,
financial capacity, and implementation feasibility in meeting water
quality and carrying out the requirements of Sections 303(e),
208(b)(2) and (c)(2) of the Act.

    Example:  To meet water quality goals, the least cost strategy
for abating municipal sources may involve a large regional  treatment
plant.  This option would allow establishing a regional approach  to
sludge utilization through land application.  Thus, this option
would be environmentally and economically desirable.  However, the
option would involve constructing sewer interceptors through un-
developed land, which, unless land use controls were strictly
applied, could induce further development.  This option would
involve the greatest institutional change, since it would require
creating authority for regional financing of treatment.

    For existing nonpoint sources such as urban stormwater,
street sweeping might be less costly than attempting to treat
stormwater.  However, altering parking regulations to allow
better sanitation would be disruptive to transportation.  The
alternative of separating some existing combined storm and
sanitary sewers could be accomplished in the course of upgrading
treatment plants, and might be the least cost solution for
combined sewer overflow.

    Adopting design standards for new drainage systems would
help protect future water quality.  The costs of these measures
could be offset through tax breaks.  The feasibility of implement-
ing these design standards would depend on adequate staffing
of the agencies responsible for supervising their enforcement.
                           1-11

-------
6.  Selection of a Plan

    The selection should be based upon systematic comparison of
the alternatives.

    Example:  Through a process of public involvement in the
planning process, there should be general familiarity with
options for meeting water quality goals.   Having identified the
least cost plan (where cost includes economic, social and
environmental considerations), the units  of government involved
in recommending plan approval  might also  consider compatibility
of the various alternative plans with other community goals.

7.  Plan Approval and Program Implementation

    Plan review and approval will be based on whether the plan
demonstrates that the 1983 water quality  goals specified in
Section 101(a)(2) will be met and that the plan meets the
requirements of Part 131 regulations.  The Governor must designate
management agency(s) having adequate authority and capability
to carry out the plan.

    Example:  The plan demonstrates that  the combined measures
for abating point and nonpoint sources will be adequate for
meeting standards.  However, to the extent that some of the
cause-and-effect relationships between nonpoint source problems
and water quality cannot be documented, the approval of the
plan should be contingent on development  of plan performance
assessment including an ongoing monitoring program.   The management
program meets the requirements of the Act for waste treatment
and regulatory programs.  However, some of the regulatory
measures needed to implement the plan are in the form of legislative
proposals before local governments in the area.  The plan
approval should be based on the condition that the regulatory
measures will become law within a given time period.  The State
should monitor the progress of implementation and recommend or
enact alternative measures if the original regulatory proposals
are not adopted locally.

8.  Periodic Updating of the Plan

    A specific procedure should be defined for monitoring plan
effects and developing annual  revisions to the plan.

    Example:  The procedure for plan updating is that instream
monitoring will be carried out by the management agency(s) to
determine needed plan revision.  The State will monitor progress
of the management program and recommend specific actions needed
to assure meeting water quality standards.
                          1-12
I

-------
                               CHAPTER 2

            CONTINUING PLANNING PROCESS DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVAL
2.1  Purpose

     The purpose of the State's continuing planning process is to set up a
management program and procedures to carry out water quality planning and
implementation requirements of the Act.  These requirements include standards
setting and revision (§303(c)), preparation of State Water Quality Management
Plans (S303(e) and S208), areawide planning and implementation (S208), annual
assessment and projection of water quality (§305(b)), clean lakes (S314(a)),
Federal/State estimate of publicly owned treatment works needs (S516(b)j, and
data for the Federal report on water quality (S104(a)(5)).

     The continuing planning process is the State's management approach for
organizing the activities that are undertaken to complete these requirements,
as well  as coordinating these activities with other programs undertaken in
the State.  In order to organize and coordinate water quality planning and
implementation activities, procedures are needed to carry out the following
functions:

     .   identify water quality problems
     .   establish the goals and standards for water quality protection
     .   delineate organizational and program responsibilities and inter-
        relationships for planning and implementing solutions to problems
     .   establish the relationship between water quality management and other
        State programs and policies
     .   establish priorities, and resource commitments for water quality
        program activities.

     Amended regulations on the continuing planning process (40 CFR Part 130)
require the State to describe the elements to be included in the process by
which the State carries out the previously discussed functions.  However, the
structure of these required elements, their timing and interrelations, are to
be determined at the discretion of the State. The purpose of the process
is to organize the State's water quality management activities.  In
general, the simpler the process by which decisions are made, the more
efficient the process will be.  Thus the process should have the fewest
possible number of steps and relationships to carry out the basic functions
described above.
                                   2-1

-------
2.2  Major Steps in Developing the Process Description

     Part 130.10(a)-(c) specifies the general  output requirements  for a
continuing planning process.   The State's  approach to meet  each of these
general  requirements should be described in its  continuing  planning process
submission.  In order to provide a framework for discussion of the con-
tinuing  planning process, these required elements can be  arranged  into the
following major steps leading to the development of the overall  process
description:

        Process Design
        Provision for Inputs  to the Process (coordination with other plan-
        ning  activities, public participation, intergovernmental  input)
     .   Preparation of the Annual State Strategy
        Preparation of the State/EPA Agreement
     .   Preparation of the State Water Quality Management Plan
     .   Revision of Water Quality Standards
     .   Outputs - Description of Above Process Elements
     .   Process Adoption and  Approval; Program Implementation

     These major steps of the process are  depicted on the following chart
(Table  2.1) roughly in chronological  order and proceed from the general  to
the specific.  The chart does not depict all  the interactions  between the
steps,  nor does it depict the timing cycle of the various stages of the
process.   These features of the process should be defined by the States in
their process submission.  (A format for describing each  of the process
elements  is provided in Table 2.3).

2.3  Detailed Guidance on Required Process Elements

     This detailed guidance will discuss each requirement of Part  130
according to  the framework depicted in Table 2.1.  In cases in which the
elements  listed in Table 2.1  have further subheadings in  Part  130, each
of the  subheadings will also  be referenced and discussed  in the guidance.

     A.   Process Design

      Process design should be the first stage of the continuing plan-
     ning process.  At this stage, an agency is  chosen to be responsible
     for  defining the elements of the process, including  inputs, their
     relationships, and timing.  In developing the process, procedures
     for  revision of the process and elements of the process should also
     be specified.  Process development includes definition of the
     following:
                                        2-2

-------
                Table 2.1  State Continuing Planning Process
                           Major Steps and Process Elements"
     Process Design
     T.State Agency Responsible for Coordinating
         Continuing Planning Process and State
         WQM Plans"
     2.  Statement of Planning Authority
     3.  Preliminary Description of Process
         Requirements
     4^  Review and Revision Procedures	
 B.    Process  Inputs
      TPublic Participation
      2.   Intergovernmental Cooperation and
          Coordination
      3.   Program Coordination
          a.   Water Program Relationships
          b.   Coordination with other Local, State,
	and Federal Programs	
      Preparation of Annual State
      Strategy       	
     State/EPA Agreement  (including Delineation
     of  Planning Areas and  Planning Responsibil-
     ities)
     1.   Segment Classification; Listing of Basins
          or Approved  Planning Areas and Segments
     2.   Designation  of Areawide Planning Areas
          and  Agencies
     3.   Delegation of Planning Responsibilities
     4.   Annual Preparation/Revision of Agreement
Preparation of Annual
State Program (§106)
      Review/Revision  of Water  Quality
      Standards  and  Definition  of Antidegradation
      Policy	.	^___
      Preparation of  State Water  Quality
      Management Plans
      TRequirements  for State  WQM Plan
          Preparation
      2.   Review and  Certification of  Plans
          for  Areawide  Planning Areas
      3.   Designation of  Management Agencies
          to Implement  Plans	
G.
Outputs: Description of State
Continuing Planning Process
4,
H.
Planning Process Adoption and Approval
Procedures
1. Planning Process Adoption
2. Submission
3. Review and Approval
                                       2-3

-------
1.   State Planning Agency Responsible for coordinating the
    Continuing Planning Process  and State WQM Plans
    (§130.10(c)(6)), (§130.12)

    A single agency is to be designated by the Governor to  be
responsible for developing and  submitting the continuing planning
process, receiving input to the  process,  and  making  appropriate
arrangements with other agencies which will have planning responsi-
bility for developing portions  of the State WQM Plan.

    .   Description of Agency

       In describing the lead State agency responsible for  the
    continuing planning process  and the State WQM Plan, information
    such as the name of agency,  structure, functions,  and budget
    should be presented.

2.   Statement of Planning Authority; Statement that  Implementation
    Authority Exists or Will Be  Sought (§130.10(c)(11)}

    The planning authority of the agency chosen to be  responsible
for the continuing planning process should be clearly  established
in  State statute.  This agency  does not have  to possess implementing
authority, but will have to identify management agencies that do
have such authority to carry out appropriate  portions  of a  State
WQM Plan.  At the time that a State agency is designated to carry
out the continuing planning process, an investigation  should be
initiated of what general authority is needed on the part of the
State or other levels of government to implement a State WQM Plan.
Where enabling legislation is needed to establish the  authority  at
the State or substate level to  establish water pollution management
and regulatory programs, the continuing planning process submission
should specify how such implementing authority will  be obtained.

    .   Description of Planning  Authority and  Needed  Implementation
       Authority"

       The continuing planning  process submission should describe
    the following aspects of needed authority for planning  and
    implementing State WQM Plans:
                           2-4

-------
       -  existing authority for water quality planning
       -  water pollution problems for which adequate authority at
          State/local  level exists to implement solutions
       -  water pollution problems for which existing State/local
          authority to resolve problems is unclear or insufficient
       -  legislation  to be sought at the State/local level  to provide
          adequate authority to resolve problems

       As specific elements of State WQM Plans are developed,
    a more specific delineation of existing and needed
    authority will be  possible.  This information should be
    included in the designation of management agencies (§130.15)
    upon completion of the State WQM Plan.

3.  Preliminary Description of Process Requirements (8130.10(a)-(c))

    At this stage in the process, the overall structure of the
elements of the process, their input, relationships and timing and
revision procedures  should be determined.  When all  the elements
of the process have been completed, a description of the process
can be prepared following the format suggested in Chapter 2.3.G.

4.  Review and Revision of Process (S130.43)

    The design of the  continuing planning process should include
specification of procedures for review and revision of the process.
The process submission should include procedures for revising  the
following major process elements by incorporating results of the
State WON Plan:

    -  Process Design
    -  State Strategy
    -  State/EPA Agreement

    It is not necessary to annually revise the entire continuing
planning process design in order to incorporate new substantive
information such as a  revised State Strategy.  It is only necessary
to incorporate the revised substantive material into the structure
set up for continuing  olanning.
                           2-5

-------
B.  Process Inputs

    The next step in developing a  management  program  for  relating water
quality and other resource management programs  is  to  define  the mechanisms
by which the general public and local  elected officials will  participate
in the management program.  Another initial step  in the management  program
is to define existing water program relationships, and define other pro-
grams that have an impact on water quality.   After describing the existing
programs affecting water quality  and existing  forms  of public participa-
tion and intergovernmental participation,  modifications to these program
and institutional arrangements  should be  proposed as  part of the State's
revised continuing planning process.

    1.  Public Participation

        •   Requirements of the  Act (S130.10(a)(1))

           Appropriate means for public participation must be provided
        at the major stages of  the continuing planning process. One of these
        major stages which must include public  participation is the State/
        EPA Agreement on level  of  detail  and  timing of the State WQM Plan.
        This element of the continuing planning process is especially important
        to the public, since it defines the strategy  and  work plan  of tasks
        that the State will accomplish in  implementing Sections 303 and 208
        and other sections of the  Act. Contact should be established as  soon
        as possible with interested members of  the public for the purpose of
        formulating a program of public participation to  be  carried out in the
        State WQM planning process.  Appropriate  forms of public partici-
        pation must also be used in formulating the design of the con-
        tinuing planning process as a whole.  The Act's requirements
        concerning public participation are discussed in  detail in  Chap-
        ter 4, in which guidance is also  presented on how to structure a
        program of public participation to meet these requirements.

        •   Institutional Alternatives in  Setting  Up Public Participation
           Programs

           Since the State is responsible  for the  continuing planning
        .process and the State WQM  Plan,  it is also responsible for  carry-
        ing out requirements for public participation.  However, since it
        is possible that certain planning  activities  will be delegated by
        the State water pollution  control  agency  to sub-state levels of
        government, designated  areawide planning  agencies, another  State
        agency or to Federal agencies, it  is  logical  that public participa-
        tion in planning should also be made  the  responsibility of  the
        agencies delegated the  planning function.  A  problem might  arise,
        however, if accountability to the public  for  various elements of
        planning were divided among many  agencies  and units  of government.
        It is thus necessary for one agency  in  each planning area—either
                                   2-6

-------
    the State agency or a designated areawide  planning  agency—to  be
    ultimately responsible to the public  for all  public participation
    activities.   In determining the State/EPA  Agreement,  the  State
    agency should design a public participation  program as  described
    above, and specify which agencies would  be responsible  to carry
    out given participation activities within  the larger program.

       In order to make the channels of communication with  the public
    very clear,  the State should designate one person in the  State
    agency to be responsible for the public  participation program  with-
    in the State.

2.  Intergovernmental  Cooperation and Coordination (S130.10(a)(2)),
    (§130.16)

    .   Adequate Input from Local  and Regional  Units of  Government
       CS130.16(a))

       In order to manage water quality planning and implementation
    activities for the State, the agency  responsible for the  continu-
    ing planning process should seek the  advice  of affected local  and
    regional  governments.  This consultation is  especially  important
    in developing the State Strategy, State/EPA  Agreement,  and carrying
    out the State WQM planning responsibilities.   This  consultation is
    also essential in making decisions concerning designation of area-
    wide agencies to undertake the 208 planning  responsibilities with-
    in the overall State WQM Plan.  Finally, consultation is  needed to
    provide coordination between areas with  designated  208  planning
    agencies, other agencies to which planning activities of  the State
    WQM Plan  have been delegated, and the State  agency  responsible for
    the continuing planning process.

    •   Institutional Arrangements (S130.16(b))

       In addition to providing means for consultation  between various
    levels of government, and in order to provide policy direction for
    the continuing planning process, the  State should encourage coordi-
    nation between various levels of government  in water quality plan-
    ning and  implementation activities.   The State should rely wherever
    possible  on  existing local, regional, State,  Federal, and interstate
    units of  government for carrying out  the State WQM  Plan.   Further
    guidance  on  selection of these agencies  and  the importance of
    intergovernmental  cooperation in plan implementation is provided
    in Ch. 9.
                               2-7

-------
           .   Policy Advisory Committee  (S130.16(c))

               The purpose of an advisory group  is  to  critique  and  aid  plan-
           ners in determining the best  means  to deal  with  water  quality prob-
           lems.   The particular procedures  for  setting  up  an advisory  group
           and making use of its views are left  to  the discretion of  the State
           agency responsible for the continuing planning process.  The State
           should exercise discretion and imagination  in setting  up advisory
           committee structures and procedures that best contribute to  develop-
           ing implementable water quality plans.

               In order to clearly delineate responsibilities for receiving
           input  from advisory committees, the lead State agency  responsible
           for the State WQM Plan should develop a  list  of  advisory groups
           (including proposed membership) at  the time it establishes or
           revises the State/EPA Agreement and delegates planning responsi-
           bilities.

               A  policy advisory committee,  including  majority  representation of
           locally elected officials*, affected  Federal  agencies  and  other
           interested organizations, including appropriate  State  agencies, is to
           be created. It will  also be desirable to include representatives of
           the general public on the policy  advisory committee.   While  the
           regulations only require one  advisory group,  it  is strongly  recommended
           that at least one advisory group  be established  for  each planning  area.
           Representatives from Federal  land managing  agencies  should be included
           on such committees where Federal  lands constitute a  significant part
           of the planning area.  The advisory committee should meet  with the
           Agency responsible for the State  WQM  Plan in  order to  discuss and  make
           recommendations on each of the following overall  steps of  planning:
           review of the EPA/State Agreement,  establishment of  objectives and
           analysis of problems, analysis of abatement measures and controls.
           consideration of alternatives, and  plan  selection.

               Each advisory group should make any  recommendations  it feels appro-
           priate to the planning agency responsible for the State  WQM  Plan in
           its area.   The planning agency director  should inform  the  advisory
           group  of his actions with the advisory group  recommendations.

           •   Policy Advisory Committee  in Designated  Areawide  Planning Areas
               (S130.16(d))

               In compliance with Section 304(j) of P.L. 92-500,  the  Admin-
           istrator of the Environmental Protection Agency  has  entered  into
           an agreement with the Secretaries of  the Departments of  Agri-
           culture, Army, and Interior.   Notice  of  Final Agreements was
           published in the Federal Register,  Vol.  38, No.  225,
           November 23, 1973.


Except where the  Regional Administrator  at the request of the State
agrees to a lesser percentage of representation.

                                      2-8

-------
       As a result of this agreement,  the planning  agency must  create
    an advisory committee, with representatives  of  the  Departments  of
    Agriculture, Interior, and Army invited  to participate.   Each
    Department may or may not participate as it  deems appropriate.
    This requirement provides for coordination of the programs  auth-
    orized under other Federal  laws with water quality  planning.

       Provisions should also be made  for inclusion of  representatives
    of the general  public on an Areawide Policy  Advisory Committee.
    The membership may be further expanded as considered appropriate
    by EPA and the State.  A special effort  should  be made to include
    representatives of agencies responsible  for  other environmental
    programs being conducted in the planning area.

    •   Interstate and International Cooperation  (S130.16(e))

       The advice of affected adjacent States and Nations is  necessary
    in conducting the continuing planning process.   Consultation
    between the State agency responsible for the continuing  planning
    process and other affected States  could  take place  through  exist-
    ing organizations such as interstate basin commissions.   Inter-
    national consultation should be undertaken through  the U.S.
    Department of State.  Where State  WQM Plans  are developed for
    interstate or international waters,  an exchange of  draft  plans
    and comments on such drafts should be arranged  between the  appro-
    priate parties.

3.   Program Coordination (S130.10Ca)(3))

    a.  Water Program Relationships

        The State's water program is composed of a  number of  acti-
    vities all of which should be coordinated to produce effective
    water quality management decisions.   The following  program
    relationships should be defined in the continuing planning
    process:

        (1)  Relationship to Monitoring and  Surveillance Program

             •  State Monitoring Program (S130.30(a))

                The minimum requirements for a' State monitoring
             strategy and program are  described  in  40 CFR Subpart B,
             Appendix A.  These regulations  should  be consulted in
             preparing the continuing  planning process  description
             so that the State's monitoring  strategy and program
                               2-9

-------
may be coordinated with other program elements  such  as
the preparation of State WQM Plans,  the revision  of
water quality standards, and implementation  of  an anti-
deqradation policy.

•   Stream Monitoring Needs for State WQM Plan Preparation
   (S130.30(b)T                     ~

   In general, monitoring information is needed for  the
following elements of a State WQM Plan:
     water quality assessment
     and segment classifica-
     tion (8131.ll(b)j  includ-
     ing nonpoint source
     assessment (§131 .ll(d))
     inventories and projec-
     tions (8131.ll(c))
     water quality standards
     (8131.ll(e))
This element of the
plan should be initially
based on existing data.
Monitoring should, how-
ever, be undertaken to
clarify gaps in existing
data, especially for wet
weather flow conditions,
and parameters that might
be included in revised
water quality standards.

Information on waste
discharge from municipal
and industrial sources
is to be based on NPDES
data and compliance
monitoring.

Monitoring programs
should be established
to determine exist-
ing water quality where
data is insufficient
to determine the levels
of water quality to
be maintained through
the State's antidegra-
dation policy.  Infor-
mation on historic
water quality is also
needed to help determine
natural background
levels of pollution.
             2-10

-------
   - total maximum daily    --  Additional  monitoring
     loads (5131.11(f))         information may be
                                needed to determine
                                whether a segment is
                                in fact water quality
                                limited.  Next, data on
                                the rate of pollutant
                                loading of significant
                                point source dischargers
                                and estimates of nonpoint
                                source waste load rates
                                to the segment may be
                                needed to determine the
                                total maximum daily load
                                and relative contribution
                                of point and nonpoint
                                sources to a segment under
                                both dry weather and wet
                                weather flow conditions.
                                Sufficient data is needed
                                to enable reliable use of
                                models.  The models would
                                then be used to establish
                                point source waste load
                                allocations.

   The State should develop and describe its method for
meeting each of the above needs.

.  Groundwater Monitoring Needs for State WQM Plan
   Preparation (S130.30(c))

   The State agency or other agencies delegated planning
responsibilities should define those areas where ground-
water problems exist or may exist in the future.  The
following criteria should be considered in determining
areas where groundwater problems may exist:

   -  previous detection of concentration of pollutants
      in groundwater above the maximum contaminent levels
      of the National Interim Primary Drinking Water
      Regulations (40 CFR 141).

   -  presence of one or more of the following problems
      or activities (where these activities have caused
      significant problems in the past under similar
      conditions):  waste disposal areas including land
      fills, land disposal of sewage or sludge, waste
      lagoons, deep well injection activities, subsurface
            2-11

-------
           excavation,  leaching  to  groundwater  from  sur-
           face  irrigation,  pumping of groundwater in excess
           of natural recharge,  leakage  from  underground
           transmission  lines  or septic  tanks or concentrated
           animal  feeding  operations, anticipated new activi-
           ties  or problems  such as one  or more of those
           discussed  above.   Prior  to a  new activity which  is
           suspected  to  cause  an increase in  groundwater  pol-
           lutant  concentration, the State should conduct a
           background survey to  determine existing ground-
           water quality prior to initiation  of new  poten-
           tially  polluting  activities.  The  State should
           also  determine  whether authority exists,  and
           attempt to gain authority, to require persons
           conducting such activities to conduct background
           surveys of groundwater quality.

       The State should  develop  appropriate criteria for
     determining where  it  will undertake groundwater monitoring
     and describe  the methods  to be used to meet groundwater
     monitoring  needs to support State WQM Plan development.

(2)   Municipal Facilities  (S130.34(b)),  (S130.31)

     .   Relationship  between State  WQM Planning and  Section 201
        Facility Planning  (S130.34(b))

         Pursuant  to  Part  131.11(h), the State  WQM Plan is to
     include  certain  elements  of planning for municipal col-
     lection  and treatment systems.  Guidance on this element
     of the State  WQM Plan is  presented  in Ch.  3.6 and Ch. 8.
     The following facility  planning outputs should  be summa-
     rized in State WQM  Plans  for any facilities expected to
     receive  a construction  grant award  during  the five years
     following initial plan  approval:

        -  delineation of  service areas  and population to be
           served
        -  preliminary estimate  of  municipal wastewater flows
           over  the twenty year  planning period
        -  preliminary identification of alternative treatment
           systems
        -  preliminary specification of  infiltration/inflow
           problems and  possible solutions; preliminary speci-
           fication of sludge  disposal or utilization options
        -  preliminary cost  estimates for collection, treatment,
           infiltration/inflow correction and sludge utilization
           or disposal
        -  proposed program  for  financing above measures
        -  preliminary determination of  which alternatives are
           likely  to  be  most cost-effective.
                    2-12

-------
        These outputs are to utilize approved 201  and 208 plans
     where available. Where these outputs have not been or will
     not be developed through 201 or 208 planning, they are
     to be developed as part of the State WQM Plan.

     .  Consistency of Approved State WQM Plan Outputs with
        Facilities Program (S130.31(a).  (bTT

        After the State has approved the municipal facility
     element pursuant to §131.11(h), further Step  1,  2,
     and 3 facilities grants are  to be consistent  with the
     approved facility outputs.  Further facility  planning
     and construction grants may  only be made to the  manage-
     ment agency(s) designated pursuant to §131.11(o) to imple-
     ment the facility portion of the State WQM Plan.  The
     Regional Administrator is given the responsibility for
     making the consistency determination.

     .  Incomplete Municipal Assessment—Relationship with
        Facilities Program (§130.31(a),  (5)7

        Where the municipal facility outputs required under
     Part 131.11(h) are not complete and approved, the
     Regional Administrator may elect to delay approving a
     facilities planning or construction grant until  an
     adequate assessment of the needs and priorities  of the
     area has been developed.

     .  Timing of Facilities Assessment  (S130.31(d))

        Because the facilities outputs required in §131.11(h)
     are critical for maintaining an integrated program for
     facilities planning and construction, these outputs
     should be timed in accordance with  construction  priori-
     ties in the State.  The EPA/State Agreement should be
     closely coordinated with the State's facilities  program.

(3)  State Participation in NPDES Program (S130.32(a),  (b), (c))

     The State's  participation in the NPDES program is  con-
tingent upon having an approved continuing planning process.
In addition to process-approval,  the various activities of
the continuing planning process must be  carried out accord-
ing to statutory  time schedules.   Once the plan or portions
                  2-13

-------
of the State WOM Plan are approved,  point source permits
must be consistent with these.plans.   See Chapter 3.10 for
the procedure for State WQM Plan adoption.

     .  Timing of State WQM Plan Completion  and Permits

        The completion of the State  WQM Plan is needed in
     water quality limited segments  to provide  wasteload
     allocations for dischargers requiring permits.   Every
     effort should be made to complete water quality  analyses
     and wasteload allocations  for those areas  of the State
     where it is expected that  higher than base level  con-
     trols will be needed to meet water quality standards.
     Schedules for completing these  analyses should be phased
     according to the timing of NPDES permit renewal  as well
     as construction grants.  High priority  should also be
     placed on completing water quality analyses in areas
     where major new industrial  location is  expected.   These
     timing considerations should be carefully  considered
     in developing the State/EPA Agreement.

(4)  Designated 208 Areawide Haste Treatment Management
     Planning Program Relationship (S130.33(a))

     The State is responsible for developing the total
State WQM Plan.  The principal  components of the plan are:

     .  Water Quality Analysis  Program

        -  Water Quality Assessments (including nonpoint
           source assessment) and Segment Classifications
        -  Inventories and Projection of Dischargers
        -  Revision of Standards
        -  Total Maximum Daily Loads
        -  Wasteload Allocations

        (Note:  These requirements stem from Sections 303,
        305(b), and 314 of the Act.)
                      2-14

-------
                  .   Water Quality Implementation Program

                     -  Municipal  and Industrial  Treatment Works Program*
                     -  Urban Stormwater Management Program
                     -  Residual  Waste Management Program
                     -  Nonpoint Source Management Program
                     -  Target Abatement Dates
                     -  Regulatory Program
                     -  Management Agency(s) and  Institutional  Arrangements
                        to Supervise and Finance  Plan Implementation

                     (Note:  These latter requirements stem primarily from
                     Section 208 of the Act.)

                  The first set of elements provides technical  direction for
            the State WQM Plan in  the form of water quality goals and evalua-
            tion of permissible levels of pollutant loading in  receiving
            waters,  while the second set of elements involves a determina-
            tion of particular abatement measures, regulatory controls
            and financial and management arrangements to meet the water
            quality goals.  These  two sets of plan elements are logically
            interrelated.

                  The State may designate areawide planning agencies to
            carry out the latter elements and provide much of the analysis
            needed by the State to finalize the former elements.  In areas
            which are not designated as areawide  planning areas, the entire
            State WQM Plan for that area is to be completed by  the State.
            Nevertheless, the State may delegate  (if these agencies agree)
            portions of the planning to sub-state or Federal  agencies.
            In the State/EPA Agreement for each area, the State must
            identify the agency responsible for each of these planning
            elements..

                  .   Coordination  of Areawide Planning and State WQM
                     Development (S130.10(c)(8);  S130r33(b),  (c))

                     Since the designated areawide planning agencies will
                  play a key role  in completing the State WQM plan, they
                  should be consulted by the State agency responsible for
                  the continuing planning process in the formulation of
                  the process and  especially in the State Strategy and
                  EPA/State Agreement.  The EPA/State Agreement is the
This refers to the requirements of §131.11(n), (i).  The relationship
between facility planning outputs developed in the State WQM Plan and
completion of the Step 1  facility planning requirements is discussed in
Chapter 3.6 and Chapter 8.
                                2-15

-------
      basis for establishing the precise  division  of
      responsibilities for the various  elements  of the
      State WQM Plan.   Since the water  quality analysis
      elements of the  State WQM Plan  are  critical  to
      completing designated areawide  plans,  the  EPA/State
      Agreement must specify how the  State will  ensure
      completion of these elements in phase  with the  needs
      of designated areawide agencies in  time to meet the 1983  water
      quality goal  and should indicate  the milestones that  the  State
      will  use to monitor the progress  of planning conducted  by
      areawide planning agencies.  The  State/EPA Agreement  should
      also  specify how areawide planning  will be coordinated  for
      interstate waters.

         Due to time and  resource constraints, the State may
      delegate some of the analytic elements of  the State WQM
      Plan  (inventories and projections,  maximum daily loads,
      wasteload allocations, schedules  of compliance) to
      designated agencies for completion, subject  to  State
      review.  Whatever division of responsibilities  is
      established between the State and designated areawide
      planning agencies,  the plan elements developed  by area-
      wide  agencies should be reviewed  for consistency with
      the State WQM Plan  and incorporated into the State WQM
      Plan  after review and certification as specified in
      S131.20(f).  Guidance on determination of  consistency
      of designated areawide plans with the  State  WQM Plan  is
      found in Chapter 3.10.  In the  case of nonpoint source
      planning, the State has the option  under Section 208(b)(4)
      of pre-empting the  nonpoint source  planning  and implementa-
      tion  in designated  areas.  In order to present  the mini-
      mum of uncertainty  to the designated area  planning process,
      the State should establish its  intentions  regarding non-
      point source planning in the State/EPA Agreement.

b.  Coordination with  Other Local, State, and Federal Planning
    Programs (SI30.34)

    Water quality management is affected  by  policies  concerning
land use, regional  development, and many  planning  activities
carried out in a State.  Information  concerning  these policies
and plans is needed as an input to the  State continuing planning
process and State WQM  Plan.  The effect of these policies and
plans on attaining water quality objectives  should be evaluated.
In addition, it is necessary to consider  the impact that the
water quality management  plan may have  on other  plans and policies
of the State.  The following guidance suggests  some of the  program
relationships that should be defined  in the  State's continuing
                           2-16

-------
planning process submission.   (Guidance on techniques for
coordinating water quality and other planning activities is
further discussed in Chapter  12.)

    (1)  Relationship with EPA Solid Haste Programs

         Section 208(b)(2)(C) calls for regulatory programs over
    all dischargers, as well  as processes to control  disposition
    of residual  waste and disposal  of pollutants on land or in
    subsurface excavations.  The specific coverage of these
    elements of State WQM Plans is  discussed further in Chapter 3,
    Thus, solid waste and sludge disposal regulation for water
    quality protection is needed in a State WQM Plan.  The Solid
    Waste Disposal Act as amended authorizes the preparation of
    State solid waste management plans.  These plans provide for
    locational decisions and  management of land disposal of solid
    wastes.  In developing programs for dealing with water pollu-
    tion from solid waste and residual  disposal, State plans for
    solid waste management should be examined for recommended
    organizational and technological solutions pertaining to the
    affected area.  State solid waste management officials and
    local agencies with primary responsibility for regulating
    and implementing solid waste management controls  have exper-
    tise in this area and should be consulted when developing a
    management program.  The  effects of the management program
    should be considered and  appropriate measures taken in coop-
    eration with local agencies to  ensure compatibility between
    the water quality management provisions and solid waste
    management within the area.

    (2)  Relationship with EPA Air  Quality Programs

         •  State Implementation Plan

            All  States are required under the Clean Air Act, to
         develop and implement State Implementation Plans (SIP's)
         which will  meet and  maintain the National Ambient Air
         Quality Standards (NAAQS).   Measures and procedures that
         would-be included in the SIP are:

            -  Stationary Source Review
            -  New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
            -  Federal Motor  Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP)
            -  Transportation Controls
            -  Air Quality Maintenance  Planning
                       2-17

-------
      Many of the control  strategies  developed  under the  SIP  will
    affect land use and development decisions.   For example,  trans-
    portation controls  involving mass transit require certain popula-
    tion densities to be effective.  The State  should make  sure  that
    population projections and control  strategies  developed under  the
    SIP are consistent with those for the State WQM Plan.   To assure
    consistency, the State should encourage frequent communication
    and exchange of information between the agencies responsible for
    the two plans, provide for integration of data requirements  and
    plan elements when practicable, and resolve conflicts  in  policy
    which may develop between the two plans.

    •  Air Quality Maintenance Planning

      Air Quality Maintenance Planning (AQMP) is a part of the SIP
    that is required for areas where it has been determined that there
    exists the potential for exceeding the NAAQS in the future.
    The State must submit a plan containing stricter control  measures
    that will ensure the maintenance of the standards.
    The plan is updated at least every 5 years.  In many areas,
    AQM areas overlap or are essentially the same  as designated
    areas, in which case the planning for the AQM  area should be closely
    coordinated with the areawide planning.  If the planning
    boundaries for the State WQM Plan include planning area(s) with
    boundaries similar to that of an AQM area,  planning within the
    planning area(s) should be closely coordinated with the planning
    for the AQMP.  Representatives of the AQM planning agency should
    be on advisory groups, and there should be  periodic reporting  and
    exchange of information.between the agencies designated to do  the
    State WQM Plan with a planning area(s) and  the planning agencies
    responsible for the AQMP.

(3) Relationship with Programs under the Safe Drinking Water  Act

    A number of important relationships exist between programs under
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and the Preparation of State  WQM
Plans.  While exact program relationships are still being  defined  by
EPA, the States should describe existing areas  of  overlap between
their water supply programs and State WQM Plan.  The States should
seek the advice of EPA Regional Offices concerning future  relation-
ships with programs authorized under the Safe Drinking Water  Act.

    The following are some of the major program relationships
between water supply and water quality planning that should be
defined:
                          2-18

-------
Siting of public water supply -
systems
Protection of aquifer recharge-
areas
   Water quality standards  and   -    The  State  should  define  in  its water
   drinking water standards          quality  standards revision  process
                                     pursuant to  SI30.17,  how water quality
                                     standards  policy  will  be coordinated
                                     with existing  and proposed  State  law
                                     regarding  drinking water or water
                                     intake standards.

                                     The  State  should  define  how regula-
                                     tory programs  over location of waste
                                     discharging  facilities pursuant to
                                     Section'208(b)(2)(C)  of  the Act will
                                     be coordinated with existing or pro-
                                     posed State  law regarding location
                                     of public  water supply facilities.

                                     The  State  should  define  how point and
                                     nonpoint source regulatory  programs
                                     to be undertaken  pursuant to Section
                                     208(b)(2)(C) -of the Act  will be coor-
                                     dinated  with existing or proposed
                                     State law  protecting  sole source
                                     aquifers or  aquifer recharge areas.

                                     The  State  should  indicate how regulatory
                                     programs for deep well injection  or
                                     subsurface disposal of pollutants re-
                                     quired pursuant to Sections 208(b)(2)(C)
                                     and  208(b)(2)(K)  of the  Act will  be
                                     coordinated  with  other existing or pro-
                                     posed State  law concerning  protection
                                     of water supply.

(4)  Relationship with  Level  B  Studies

    .   Program Coordination

       Section 209 of  the FWPCAA  authorizes the preparation of Level B
    plans for all  basins in the United  States.  These  plans are  to ana-
    lyze water and related  land resources management problems and serve
    as a basis for recommendation to  Congress of  priorities for  "inves-
    tigation, planning,  and construction  of projects"  (42  U.S.C. 1962(b)).

       In order to minimize collection  of new data  in  preparation of
    a  Level  B plan, maximum utilization should  be made of  on-going State
    planning programs.  A portion of  State input  to Level  B studies can
    be provided through  these  programs, but only  if complementarities
    are identified. States should work to coordinate  their State WQM
    Plan with any Level  B planning occurring  within their  State, and
Underground
pollutants
injection of
                          2-19

-------
provide the agencies responsible for Level  B planning with needed
water quality inputs.  In addition, the States should work with
the Level B planning agency to assure that  adequate attention  is
given to water quality objectives,  expecially in  areas with major
nonpoint source pollution problems.

   Level B plans can assist State WQM Plan  efforts  by facilitating
interstate consistency in development and application of nonpoint
source control measures, and by providing a mechanism to identify
responsibilities of Federal agencies (through their involvement in
Level B planning) to eliminate or ameliorate point  and nonpoint
source pollution.

.  Specific Program Relationships (§130.34(c))

   Where Level B studies are being  conducted or have been completed,
outputs of these studies should be  incorporated into the State WQM
Plan.  These outputs are listed in  Part 130.34(c)(l)-(7).   Guidance
on incorporating these outputs into the State WQM Plan is discussed
below:

   -  Existing and Projected Water  Withdrawals and  Consumptive
      Demand

      This information should be related to municipal  and industrial
   wastewater flow projections (§131.11(c)  of the State WQM Plan)
   especially where availability of water is a limiting factor in
   future development of an area.  Information on future surface  and
   groundwater supply should be related to  water  quality (including
   salt water intrusion and salinity) assessment  and pollution
   control needs in the State WOM Plan.

   -  Water Supply Facilities, Effects on Water Quality

      Where water supply facilities are projected,  an analysis of
   their effect on water quality should be  included in the State
   WQM Plan.  The analysis should include assessment of the impact
   of water treatment processes (and associated residuals) on
   instream water quality.

   -  Water Development Measures, Watershed Management

      The water quality impact of existing  and proposed hydrologic
   modifications and management measures (dams, impoundments,  levees,
   channelization) should be included in the water  quality analysis
   conducted in the State WQM Plan  where such developments have a
                       2-20

-------
       substantial impact on water quality and pollution control needs.

       -  Mild and Scenic Rivers

          Where proposals are made in Level B studies for Wild and
       Scenic Rivers designation, or where such designations have been
       made, the State should develop appropriate water quality stand-
       ards  (including antidegradation policy) and implementation
       measures in the State WQM Plan, in order to protect the rivers
       that are so designated.

       -  Energy Development

          Where energy development affecting water quality or quantity
       is projected, appropriate pollution control considerations should
       be incorporated into the State WQM Plan.

    .  Future Level B Studies S130.34(d)

       Where Level B studies have not been initiated to the extent that
    information is available, an analysis of the effects of the foregoing
    water development and conservation projects on water quality should
    be developed in the State WQM Plan as an input to future Level B
    studies.

(5) Relationship with Other State and Federal Programs

    A number of Federal agencies are involved in programs which are
related to the State WQM Plan.  These may be classed as either grant
programs or management and technical assistance programs.  Examples
of the former are the HUD 701 program, the Coastal Zone Management
program under NOAA, and DOT transportation plans.  Examples of the
latter are the activities of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Soil
Conservation Service and the Forest Service.  Other planning and
implementation activities may be carried on at the State level in addition
to those funded through Federal programs.  Included among these would
be the programs of State soil and water conservation agencies, natural
resources departments, fish  and wildlife agencies, agricultural
departments etc.

    Since the planning efforts of these various programs may have
direct interrelationships with the planning done for the State WQM
Plan, especially in the area of land use, steps should be taken to
ensure that there is consistency between the plans.  Coastal  Zone
Management Plans, for example, determine permissible and priority land
and water uses for coastal  areas of a State.  HUD 701  Plans similarly
include a land use element.  Such land use policies must be consistent
with the maintenance of water quality and nonpoint source controls which
would affect land use.  Guidance on techniques for plan coordination
may be found in Chapter 12.
                            2-21

-------
    In addition to .planning efforts, other Federal  agencies are
directly involved in programs within the States which relate to
the State WQM Plan.  Many of the Corps of Engineers activities,
for example, can have a significant effect on water quality.  In
addition, the Corps provides technical assistance which can be of
use to a State preparing a State WQM Plan.  One way this is done
is through the Corps' Urban Studies Program which is concerned
with urban water resources problems, including wastewater manage-
ment.  In addition, the Corps is specifically directed to provide
technical assistance for areawide planning (Section 208(h) FWPCA).
EPA and the Coras have developed an agreement which specifies the
coordinating and funding policy regarding this assistance.

    Other Federal land and water managing agencies  such as the
Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Reclamation should be
contacted by the State in order to work out specific arrangement
for developing water quality management plans for Federal lands.

    Other Federal programs can also be of use to the States in
preparing their State WQM Plan.  The Soil Conservation Service of
the Department of Agriculture can provide technical assistance in
the assessment and control of nonpoint sources, especially those
resulting from uses which can cause soil erosion.  In addition, all of
SCS administered programs are implemented through local Soil and
Water Conservation Districts.  These conservation districts, which
are legal subdivisions of state government established under state
law, have the responsibility for planning and carrying out erosion
control and related conservation programs.  With the assistance
of their cooperating agencies, they can help provide information
on nonpoint source control techniques, provide technical assistance
in planning for utilization of such techniques, and assist in im-
plementation of the measures.  In some states, the districts have
plan approval and other responsibilities in connection with mandatory
State and local sediment control programs.

    The Forest Service, as land managers, needs to establish cooper-
ative planning relationships with each State that has U.S. forest
lands.  The State should develop specific agreements with the Forest
Service on how to relate its watershed management program to the
State WQM Plan.  EPA can assist in establishing the necessary rela-
tionships.  The Forest Service does provide technical and financial             f
assistance to the States for the administration of State and private
forest lands.  These programs should be coordinated with the State
WQM Plan.

    Other Department of Agriculture programs include the Agricul-
tural Conservation Program administered by the Agricultural Stab-
ilization and Conservation Service which can supply cost-sharing
assistance for many of the Best Management Practices that may be
necessary to control runoff and reduce sedimentation from farms.
Technical assistance for this program is given by the Soil Con-
servation Service and Forest Service.                                          ^


                            2-22

-------
    In summary, the State should determine the relationship between water
quality and other planning programs  within the State,  ensure consistency
between the plans, and work with Federal  programs  to make use of their
technical expertise.

(6) Planning Requirements for Federal  Properties,  Facilities,
    or Activities SI30.35'

    .   Compliance with State and Local  Pollution Control  Requirements
       S130.35U)

       The State holds ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the
    WQM Plans are prepared and implemented throughout  the State.
    Federal facilities and in some cases  large holdings  of federal
    lands are found in practically all  States. Pollution control
    requirements for federal facilities and lands  are  stated in  Section
    313 of the Act, Executive Order  11752 and  40 CFR Part 130.35.
    The Executive Order requires compliance by federal facilities
    with Federal, State, interstate, and  local substantive standards
    and limitations dealing with the control of environmental  pollu-
    tion.  State water quality standards, effluent limitations and
    discharge permits are specifically cited as substantive requirements.
    Compliance with other requirements  including land  use requirements
    or best management practices are not  specifically  cited as
    substantive requirements.  Thus  Federal  agencies are  required to
    meet State water quality standards  but are given latitude to
    define their approach to meeting these standards.

       Point sources are subject to  NPDES permits.   For  Federal  sources
    EPA is the permitting authority.  For non-Federal  sources on
    Federal lands, the State issues  the permits after  EPA approves the
    State's permit program.  Under Executive Order 11752, the Federal
    Land Manager (FLM) determines what  is a Federal  or non-Federal
    source on his lands.  The agency with State water  quality manage-
    ment point source planning responsibilities for Federal  facilities
    or lands should work with the FLM to  delineate which  types of
    sources are Federal and which are not.  In general Federal sources
    should be those operated by the  Federal  agency or  in  behalf  of its
    mission.  Non-Federal  sources would include effluents from activit-
    ies carried out on Federal  lands under lease or permit (timber
    harvesting, mining, recreational cabins, ski lodges,  etc.).

       Where meeting the substantive requirements  of State water quality
    standards will  require land management controls, as may be the case
    with nonpoint source pollution,  these controls  would  be  considered
    procedural  for the purposes of Executive Order 11752.   Thus, the
    FLM would be responsible for development and enforcement of  such
    controls.  However, such controls would have to be at least  as
                            2-23

-------
        stringent as  State/local  controls  for adjacent  lands with  similar
        kinds of problems  and characteristics in  order  to  provide  needed
        levels of pollution abatement.

        •   Federal-State Cooperation  in  Plan  Development  (S130.35(b)-(d))

           Federal  lands are an  area  of  overlapping  responsibility since
        the State is  responsible for  developing nonpoint source  abatement
        measures to protect water quality  and the FLM is responsible  for
        meeting water quality standards  following this  plan or any other
        effective approach.  In  order to avoid duplication of planning, it
        is EPA policy to encourage the development of cooperative  agree-
        ments between the  State  and appropriate FLM.  Such agreements
        should outline the responsibilities of both  the'State and  the FLM
        in developing and  implementing the controls  necessary to meet water
        quality standards  on federal  lands including participation of the
        FLM on the State Water Quality Policy Advisory  Committee,  and other
        policy advisory committees for planning areas within the State,
        development of Best Management Practices, and establishment of any
        necessary implementing,  operating, or regulatory programs. If no
        agreement can be reached the  differences  will be mediated  by  EPA
        and, if necessary, by the Office of Management  and Budget,,

           All expenditures necessary to plan for and implement  point and
        nonpoint source controls for  Federal  sources are to be included
        in the budget of the FLM.  Under the  provisions of Section 313
        of the Act, no exemptions shall  be granted due  to  lack of  appro-
        priation available.  This does not preclude  contractual  arrange-
        ments between the  State  and the  FLM for technical  planning
        assistance.

C.  Preparation of Annual  State  Strategy

    1.   Purpose

        The State Strategy is the management  device  used to define water
    quality problems  Statewide,  prioritize the control  of  those  problems,
    schedule the corrective measures  to  be taken, and generally  project the
    resources needed to accomplish the tasks. Thus  the State Strategy
    provides direction for preparing  the Annual State 106  Program.

    2.   Relationship to National Program Guidance (§130.20(a))

        Prior to the development of the  State Strategy, each State will be
    provided with the National Strategy  and National Operating Guidance
    developed by EPA.  These two documents set out the  basic objectives and
                                  2-24

-------
priorities of the National  Program and should  give the  States  enough
information to construct their own individual  Strategy,  integrating
the essential requirements  of the National  Program,  while  incorporat-
ing more localized State needs.  The Regional  Offices will  assist  the
States in producing the proper balance.

3.  Contents of Strategy:

    -  Input to Strategy

       In gathering the information needed  to  develop an annual  State
    Strategy the following  information should  be  consulted:

       -  completed or ongoing State WQM Plans
       -  inputs for development of State WQM  Plans  (described in  Ch.  3.5)
       -  other planning activities related to water quality and water
          resources (described in Ch.  2.3.B)

    -  Problem Assessment (S130.20(a)Q))

       The first step in the development of the State Strategy is  the
    consolidation of available water quality data to assess water  quality
    problems Statewide.  The best way to aggregate the  data is by  stream
    segment.  The quality of the waters  of  a segment should be defined
    at stream monitoring stations within that  segment.   Each segment
    should be analyzed on the basis of the  criteria  set forth  in approved
    water quality standards to ascertain the segment's  ability to  provide
    for a balanced population of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and for
    recreational activities.  The State  may find  that present  water
    quality conditions could be more appropriately analyzed at the basin
    or sub-basin levels. However, for consistency at both  the national
    and State levels, each  State should  attempt to aggregate water
    quality data at the segment level.

       The State's annual water quality  inventory report (305(b) Report)
    requires much of the same water quality assessment  data as the State
    Strategy.  Since the 305(b) Report is intended to be far more  com-
    prehensive than the Strategy's problem  assessment,  the  relevant
    aspects of the 305(b) report should  be  used to constitute  the  problem
    assessment.  EPA has previously provided the  States  with guidelines for
    the development of the  305(b) report which should be consulted.  After
    the water quality assessments required  under  S131.11(b) and  (d) have
    been developed, this information should be used  in  preparation of  the
    Annual State Strategy as well as the 305(b) report.
                           2-25

-------
-  Priority and Ranking (S130.20(a)(2))

   Based on the water quality assessment,  each segment within the
State should be ranked in order of priority.   This  may have been
done previously in Phase I Plans.   From  the water quality manage-
ment plans completed in the past two years, and from routine or
intensive monitoring activities, the State may be in a position
to more accurately assess problem segments, and to  some degree, amend
the original ranking.  Generally, water  quality limited segments
should receive a higher rank than effluent limited  segments.  The
complex nature of a water quality limited  segment may require a
longer time frame required to control  pollution in  these segments.

   The water quality assessment should yield most of the informa-
tion needed to rank the segments.   However, extent  of pollution
problem may not necessarily be the only  factor used for purposes
of ranking segments.  Preservation of high quality  waters, the
size of the population being affected by a pollution problem, or
other appropriate criteria may be used also.   There is no specified
weighting which any of the chosen criteria should receive except
that the State should generally consider control  of its worst
pollution problems first.

   The ranking of segments should be used  together  with the muni-
cipal treatment works inventory developed  pursuant  to §131.11 (c)
to formulate the State's project priority list required in S35.915(c).
Project priorities should reflect both the severity of pollution
problems in different segments  (e.g. segment ranking) and the
severity of pollution problems caused by municipal  facilities (e.g.
municipal inventory ranking).

-  Approach to Solving Problems (S130.20(a)(3))

   After the State has completed the ranking of each segment, another
required step is development of an overview of the  State's approach
to solving its water quality problems.

   The overview should highlight only the most significant pollution
problems and the State's approach to solving them.   This information
should be readily available from completed water quality management
plans, or where there are none completed,  from ambient monitoring
data.  The overview is intended to focus concern on the type of
pollution problems which generally exist in each basin or geographic
area of the State.

   In developing its overview, the State should decide which basins
or geographic areas exhibit pollution problems of most immediate
concern and which areas will receive the major concentration.  For
                           2-26

-------
example, municipal point source controls may suffice, or a difficult
nonpoint source problem may dictate intense research and additional
monitoring.  As nonpoint problems are exceedingly difficult to
control, the State should construct a realistic long-term strategy
utilizing all available water quality data.

-  Scheduling of Programs (S130.20(a)(5))

   After basic problem identification has been cited, basin or
geographic priorities listed, and a general approach to alleviating
the problems conceptualized, the State must describe
program activities to implement the general scheme.

   A crucial aspect of scheduling program activities is their timing.
Each water segment should have the various activities coordinated in
proper sequence.  Any facilities planning, permitting, construction,
monitoring, or enforcement should be planned so that the actions taken
may be mutually reinforced.   Planning should generally be completed
prior to other actions being taken.  Municipal construction (grant
award) should be closely coordinated with any permit activities.  Any
necessary action which the State plans call for over the next five
years should be clearly spelled out with proper phasing indicated.
This provides a mechansim by which the State can better assess the
objectives necessary to upgrade water quality in each segment and
ascertain the resources needed to implement these various activities.

-  Program Resource Needs (S130.20(a)(4))

   A necessary element in a  definition of water quality problems
and solutions is an estimate of the resources that will be required
to implement corrective actions.  Such estimates should be consistent
with a State's Water Quality Management Plan, and cover a time frame
of sufficient duration to indicate a relationship between planned
actions and resource utilization.  Once determined, these resources
estimates will provide a basis for continuous program planning and
budget justification.

   Each State is required to prepare and update annually a year-by-
year, five (5) year estimate of the resources needed to conduct the
State program.  These estimates should be detailed by major program
element for the financial and man-year resource requirements for each
year.  Greater detail may be appropriate for the first year resource
estimates.  A description of the method or methods used to determine
estimates and projections over the five year period should be included
to indicate the relationship of future resource requirements to future
achievements.
                           2-27

-------
           Since the result of this resource estimation is  important in
        effective program planning and budget justification,  the
        methodology used should be sufficiently rigorous to assure a
        meaningful  statement of need.   EPA will  provide guidance on
        alternative methods for preparation of these resource estimates
        and projections.

        -  Monitoring Strategy (S130.20(a)(6))

           Refer to the discussion of  monitoring found  in Ch. 2.3.B.3.

    4.  Submission  of Strategy (S130.20(b))

        The annual  State Strategy should be submitted as part of the
        continuing  planning process annual  program submission (see Ch.  2.3.H).
        Both the annual State Strategy and any revisions to the continuing
        planning process should be submitted with the Section 106 Program
        Submission.

D.  Preparation of  State/EPA Agreement Including Delineation  of
    Planning Areas  and Planning Responsibilities

    Based on the information in the State Strategy, a specific agreement
on planning responsibilities and tasks is needed in order to  carry out
the State WQH Plan.  This agreement must be submitted within  150 days
after the effective date of the Part 130 regulations as part  of the
State's continuing  planning process submission.   The agreement is to be
reviewed annually and revised if necessary,as part of the annual  planning
process review (S130.43).

    In order to specify the planning tasks and responsibilities in the
State/EPA Agreement, the State should  determine the areas where various
forms of planning are needed and the agencies that might be delegated
planning responsibilities in these areas.  The following are  some of the
steps leading to development of the Agreement:

    1.  Segment Classification; Listing and Maps of Planning
        Areas and Segments (S130.10Cc)(2), (3))

        The continuing planning process submission must delineate
    planning boundaries, including segments within those boundaries,
    where the planning activities required in Part 131  are  to take place.
    It must be recognized that this delineation of planning areas depends
    on accurate assessment of water quality problems and segment classi-
    fication.  However at the time of submission of the revised continu-
    ing planning process, it may not be possible to definitively classify
    effluent limited and water quality segments due to  the  following factors:
                                   2-28

-------
-  lack of definition of water quality standards to achieve the
   1983 goals
-  inadequate data on the high flow-wet weather problems caused
   by nonpoint sources

.  Segment Classification

   The initial delineation of segments should be based on best
available information and may require further refinement.  However,
the following segment delineation could probably be made notwithstand-
ing the lack of information concerning the factors discussed above:

   -  Where segments are now classified as water quality limited,
   due primarily to point sources for which effluent limitations
   for 1977 and 1983 do not differ to a very large degree (example:
   municipal treatment requirements), the probability is that the
   segment will remain water quality limited.

   -  Where increase in waste loads is expected to exceed the
   assimilative capacity of the stream after application of effluent
   limitations required by 1983, the segment should be classified
   as water quality limited.

   -  Where a segment is now water quality limited, with substantial
   nonpoint source or stormwater discharges, it should be tentatively
   classified as water quality limited.

   -  Waters which are above standards and in which no degradation
   will be allowed should be classified as water quality limited.

   -  Where the existing classification is effluent limited and
   antidegradation policy will not be applied, assuming no large
   nonpoint source problems, and assuming a moderate amount of
   growth, the segment may be tentatively classified as effluent
   limited.

   -  Areas where the State intends to certify pursuant to §130.11(b)
   that no pollution problems exist, or will exist over the planning
   period, could be classified as effluent limited.

.   Planning Area Selection

   The tentative segment classification will indicate where differ-
ent levels of water quality exist in the State.   Based on this
                        2-29

-------
information, planning areas can be delineated for carrying out
the State WQM Plan.

   The revised Part 130 regulations provide flexibility in the
choice of planning area.  The following are approaches to delineate
planning areas that may be used singly or in combination:

   -  hydro!ogic boundaries -- Certain of the requirements of the
      State WQM Plan (segment classification, calculation of total
      maximum daily loads) should generally be carried out according
      to hydro!ogic units.

   -  political boundaries — Political units may be used as plan-
      ning areas for carrying out the requirements of the State
      WQM Plan with respect to development of abatement measures.

   Under either of these approaches, the State can be divided
geographically into mutually exclusive planning areas.  However,
it is possible to interpret planning area as referred to in §130.11,
to mean any area for which planning for particular problems is
conducted.  Under this latter interpretation, it is possible for
one form of water pollution problem to overlap with areas having
other forms of water pollution.   The State may delineate
both mutually exclusive and overlapping areas and subareas.,
However, some requirements, such as the water quality analyses
and determination of maximum allowable pollutant loads need to
be conducted for single, mutually exclusive, areas of the State.
The following are factors to consider in determining whether to
delineate areas for various forms of planning:
                         2-30

-------
 -  Area versus category approach

    Once water quality analyses including calculation of total
maximum daily loads and wasteload allocations have been develop-
ed, there are two basic alternatives for developing abatement
strategies to meet these wasteload constraints within given
planning areas.

    The area approach involves simultaneous development of
alternative abatement measures for all  sources within the plan-
ning area.  To carry out this approach  requires developing
estimates of pollution generation for each unit of land in the
planning area and consideration of alternative abatement measures
for such units.  This approach depends  on developing a great
deal of information on the problems of  an area before considering
abatement alternatives.  The advantage  of the approach is that
by developing a comprehensive analysis  of all the problems of
an area, it is possible to consider the cost effectiveness of
alternatives between abatement of various point and nonpoint
sources.  This approach is presented in greater depth in Ch. 6.

    The category approach involves delineating subareas within  a
planning area where particular forms of pollution or pollution
generating activity occur, and developing abatement measures for
each of these pollution sources, one at a time.  The level of
abatement for each source should be based on the water quality
analysis (conducted on a hydro!ogic basis).  This approach enables
focusing on priority problems and developing immediate solutions
without having to consider the interaction and cost effectiveness
tradeoffs among all the abatement alternatives.  Under this
approach it is possible that one geographic area will be in a
planning subarea for various forms of pollution.  It is also
possible for the subareas to overlap.  Planning procedures based
on this approach are further discussed  in Ch. 3.6.

-  Areas where planning is not required

   Whichever of the above approaches (or combination of approaches)
for planning area delineation is used,  it is possible that there
will be areas where the State can certify, pursuant to SI30.11(b)
that no pollution problems exist (see discussion of this certifi-
cation procedure on page 2-35).  While  it is conceivable that
the State would delineate these areas along political jurisdic-
tions, it could even choose those areas where no particular form
of pollution exists to be delineated along hydrologic boundaries.
                         2-31

-------
      In addition to technical  considerations, institutional
   factors should be kept in mind in determining how to delineate
   planning areas.  Part 130 regulations require institutional
   coordination including adequate intergovernmental input,
   public participation, and coordination with other planning
   activities.  In addition, a  State/EPA Agreement on level  of
   detail and timing should be  developed for each planning area.
   This places practical limitations in the approach of having
   overlapping planning areas.   Consequently, where complex
   water quality problems and institutional  constraints exist
   to Statewide planning, the area level planning approach is
   probably more feasible.

2. Designation of Areawide Planning Areas and Agencies; Description
   of Existing and Proposed Designations (S130.13); (131.10(e).(f))

   Where the State chooses to delegate major planning responsibilities
for development of the State WQM Plan to a single representative  agency,
the State should consider designating the area as an areawide planning
area pursuant to Section 208(a)(2)-(4).  Guidance on the procedures and
criteria for designating such areas will be contained in a separate
handbook entitled "Area and Agency Designation Handbook."  This  hand-
book will be available through  the EPA Regional  Offices.   This  handbook
indicates the information to be submitted to EPA in describing  proposed
areawide planning agency designations.

3. Delegation of Planning Responsibilities (S130.10(c)(9), §130.14)

   .  Planning Responsibilities (S130.14(a))

      As part of the work plan  established in the EPA/State Agreement
   on level of detail and timing, and the delineation of planning
                                                                             4
                         2-32

-------
areas discussed above, each agency having responsibility to carry
out an element of the work plan within a given planning area should
be so designated.  Consistent with the alternatives for planning
area delineation, planning responsibilities may be delineated on an
area basis (example:  all of the approved planning area or basin)
or on a category or problem basis (example:  municipal facilities,
or a given nonpoint source category within an approved planning
area).  However, certain tasks such as the basic water quality
analysis are not easily divisible and should generally be carried
out by a single agency.

   Whatever division of planning tasks is followed in a planning
area, the State remains responsible for the integration of these
activities and is responsible for ensuring that all the elements of
the planning are coordinated and consistent. The State is also
responsible for ensuring that public participation, intergovern-
mental input in the form of advisory group activities, and other
coordination functions are carried out in each planning area.
Because these coordination activities should be closely related to
the planning tasks, if the State has delegated the major planning
tasks to another agency, the State may also choose to delegate
its supervisory and coordination functions as a lead agency in the
approved planning area.  This lead agency would then be responsible
to carry out the public participation program, the coordination
with advisory groups and interagency coordination activities.  The
lead agency in the approved planning area could also undertake the
day to day supervision of the work plan for the area and the
updating of the work plan.  It must be emphasized, nevertheless,
that any delegation of the State's functions in planning, including
supervisory and coordination functions, does not modify the res-
ponsibility of the State to ensure that the requirements of the
Act are carried out.

   As indicated below, work plans should be drawn up for each
approved planning area.  Within each planning area all the tasks
needed for completing the State WQM Plan should be assigned to a
specific agency, and the subarea in which the tasks are to be
carried out should be delineated.  The lead agency in the approved
planning area having supervisory and coordination responsibilities
should also be designated.  The lead agency should be assigned the
tasks of public participation, coordination with advisory groups
of local  officials and interagency coordination.

.  Consultation with Locally Elected Officials and Local
   Organizations (S130.14(b))

   The State should develop appropriate mechanisms for consulting
with locally elected officials and local organizations for purposes
of determining planning responsibilities.  The public participation
                        2-33

-------
and intergovernmental cooperation procedures developed in the
continuing planning process (see Ch. 2.3.B)  should be used for
consultation concerning delegation of planning responsibilities.

•   Description of Delegated Planning Agency(s) (§130.14(c),(d))

   In describing planning agencies which have been delegated to  under-
take State WQM planning responsibilities, the agency's name, address,
name of director, planning responsibilities  and geographic coverage,
and other pertinent information should be included as part of
the information furnished in the State/EPA Agreement.  In
addition, the agency designated to undertake State WQM Plan
responsibilities should furnish information  demonstrating its
interest and capability to undertake the planning responsibilities.
This information could consist of:

   - citation of the agency's planning authority
   - information on the agency's experience  in related planning
   - intergovernmental agreements to undertake planning
   - policy statements or resolutions of affected governments
   - information on the availability of budget and staff to
     undertake planning
   - any other information that the State might regard as
     necessary to indicate willingness to undertake planning

•   Nonpoint Source Planning Responsibilities

   In the State/EPA Agreement that is initially submitted, the
State should explicitly make its intentions  known regarding
nonpoint source planning and regulatory responsibilities in
areas where 208 planning agencies have been  designated or where  the
State intends to designate such areas.  If the State intends to
undertake nonpoint source planning and regulatory activities in
areas already designated for 208 planning it should notify the
responsible agencies in writing and also so  notify the EPA
Regional Administrator.  The State should request the EPA Region-
al Administrator to appropriately modify the areawide planning
project work plan.  The State should indicate its concurrence
with any areawide planning project work plans when it develops
the State/EPA Agreement.

.   Additional Delegation to Planning Agencies (S130.14(e))

   Additional planning agency delegations may be made through the
continuing planning process revision procedure.
                        2-34

-------
      4.  State/EPA Agreement for each Approved Planning Area  (S130.11(a))

          The State/EPA agreement on level  of detail  and timing  of State
      WQM Plan preparation is, in effect,  a work program for the State
      WQM planning effort.  An agreement should be  drawn up  for  each
      approved planning area*, indicating  the following  information:

          -  boundary of planning area and subareas where specific forms
             of planning may be needed,  (same as chosen pursuant to
             S130.10(c)(2))

          -  level of detail  of plan elements or outputs

          -  planning tasks to be accomplished to produce the  elements of
             a State WQM Plan

          -  logical relationships and interdependences between tasks

          -  planning agency responsible and timing of e.ach  task

          -  lead planning agency responsible for coordinating planning
             within the planning area.

          The level of detail of planning  will  depend on the types of
      problems encountered in the planning area and priorities for resolving
      these problems.  Further guidance on  determining level of  detail of
      the elements of a State WQM Plan is  contained in Ch. 3.

          .  Certification that no Water Quality or Source Control  Problem
             Exists (S130.11(b)J

             As indicated above, the entire State should be  divided into
          planning areas within which subareas  having particular problems
          may be delineated for particular forms of planning.  In  the event
          that a particular water quality  parameter for  which  a  numerical
          standard exists is not being exceeded, or that particular types
          of pollution sources or activities do not exist (and will not
          exist over the 20 year planning  period),  the State may certify
          that planning for these water quality problems and/or  sources is
          not necessary.  These certifications  must be made  for  each
          planning area where the water quality problems do  not  exist and
          must indicate:
Proposed or approved work plans  in  designated  planning  areas may  be  used to
satisfy the requirement for a  State/EPA Agreement  if the  State  so chooses.
                                 2-35

-------
   -  the water quality parameter(s)  not being  exceeded

   -  activities or sources of pollution which  do  not  require
      planning consideration

   -  geographic extent (if appropriate) of areas  where  problems
      do not exist, related to approved planning areas

   -  documentation supporting the certification (for  example:
      water quality data,  population  and employment  projections,
      hydrologic or geologic information)

   The certifications should be submitted as part  of the State/EPA
Agreement, which is to be  submitted 150 days after the effective
date of the Part 130 regulation.

•   Phasing of Planning (8130.11(c))

   The Agreement must provide  a sequence for phasing of  §131  plan
preparation for completion  by  November 1, 1978  at  the  appropriate
level of detail and in sufficient time to meet  the 1983  national
water quality goal  specified in Section 101(a)(2)  of the Act.   The
level of detail of each plan element  should be  such  that upon  comple-
tion of the element implementation of needed control measures  can
proceed expeditiously.  However,  as indicated in the guidance  on  State
WQM Plan development (Ch.  3.3) in some cases, where  uncertainty exists
regarding the existence of a past water quality problem  or where
implementation cannot be undertaken within the  next  five years, the
level of detail of plan elements  may  consist of an assessment  of
control needs.

   The following important dates  should be kept in mind:

   -  November 28,  1975 -- final  Parts 130, 131 promulgation

   -  January 27, 1976  — Identification of areas eligible for
                           designation under Section 208(a)(2)-(4)

   -  April 26, 1976    -- Continuing planning  process revisions
                           to  be  submitted by State  to Regional
                           Administrator

   -  April 26, 1976    -- Complete documentation  of areawide
                           planning area designations  to be sub-
                           mitted to  Regional Administrator

   -  May 26, 1976      -- Regional Administrator  to approve/
                           conditionally approve/disapprove
                           continuing planning  process

   -  July 1, 1976      -- Phase I Water Quality Management Plans
                           due where extensions have been granted

                           2-36

-------
           -  September 1976    -- Biennual  Report to Congress  on  Municipal
               & September 1978    Needs

           -  July 1977         -- Recommended revisions of water  quality
                                   standards due

           -  December 1977     -- Second round of NPDES permits

           -  November 1, 1978  -- State WQM Plans due for final  submission
                                   to Regional Administrator

           -  March 1, 1979     -- Regional  Administrator to approve/
                                   conditionally approve/disapprove State
                                   WQM Plan  and Implementation  Program

           Within a given planning area the  State/EPA Agreement should
        provide appropriate timing of the various elements of a State  WQM Plan
        As the above schedule indicates, the planning period for preparation
        of the State WQM Plan is somewhat more than 2 years (between finaliz-
        ing the State/EPA Agreement and submission of plans).

E.  Review/Revision of Water Quality Standards and Definition of
    Antidegradation Policy

    EPA policy on the review and revision of water quality standards is
stated in S130.17.  Detailed guidance interpreting how to meet  the require-
ments of §130.17 is contained in Ch. 5.  The following is an overview  of
the steps that the State would need to follow to carry out the  policy
expressed in §130.17:

    1.  Develop Standards Revision Policy §130.10(b)(1), (2)

        Recommendation for revision of standards are needed for two general
    situations:  first, to adequately protect existing instream beneficial
    uses (including high quality waters for  which existing standards are
    not stringent enough) and second, to propose upgrading of existing
    designated use classifications in order  to achieve the 1983 goals.

        In either of these situations, the recommended standards  should
    include the following basic characteristics:

        .  Appropriate beneficial  uses should be indicated and  categorized

           Beneficial uses would include public water supply, propagation of
        fish, shellfish and wildlife, recreation, agricultural  water supply,
                                   2-37

-------
          industrial  water supply,  and  other  uses  of water  including
          navigation.  The currently designated  uses must be  maintained
          with limited exceptions.   The existing water  quality  supporting
          these beneficial  uses  would have  to be maintained,  protected,  or
          improved.   These uses  should  be consistent with the general  welfare
          and must provide for protection of  public health.   Thus  water  uses
          that only benfit particular users should not  be chosen unless  these
          uses do not preclude uses sought  by the  general public.

          .   Adequate criteria to support the uses should be  included

             Both narrative and  numerical criteria should be  specified at
          a  level needed to protect the beneficial uses.  The criteria
          should cover those pollutant  substances  that  represent
          serious existing or potential problems in a water body and        \
          that would require limitation in  order to protect beneficial
          uses.  The values chosen  for  numerical criteria should be consis-
          tent with those recommended in the  EPA Document Quality  Criteria
          for Water,  to be published pursuant to Section 304(a) of the Act.

          .   Anti-degradation Policy should be established  and  Implemented

             The State should determine how existing high quality  waters
          will be protected through implementation of appropriate  point
          and nonpoint source controls  to be  specified  in the State WQM
          Plan.  If the State chooses to allow some deterioration  of
          existing water quality (where existing waters are at  a level
          above that necessary to provide minimum  protection  of beneficial
          uses), it must meet the procedural  requirements indicated in
          Part §130.17(e) as well as the substantive requirements  of other
          Federal law protecting existing water  uses on Federal lands*
          The specific beneficial uses  and  necessary criteria to protect
          these beneficial  uses  should  be indicated for waters  to  be
          covered by the State's anti-degradation  policy and  implementa-
          tion program.

Other Federal laws that may protect existing  instream water quality
include, but are not limited to:
      (i) The Endangered Species Act
     (ii) The Marine Mammal Act
    (iii) The Wilderness Act
     (iv) The Coastal Zone Management Act
      (v) The Safe Drinking Water Act
     (vi) The National Historic  Preservation  Act
    (vii) The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
   (viii) The organic acts and executive orders  creating
             Federal  land managing  agencies.


                                 2-38

-------
     .  Other technical and procedural requirements

       In addition to the basic characteristic described above, the
    recommendation for standards revision should conform with the
    detailed technical and procedural guidance on standards revision
    contained in Chapter 5.

2.  Determine Relationship Between Standards Revision Process
    and State WQM Plan Developme'nT

    In order to carry out water quality analysis and develop imple-
mentation measures, it is necessary to have a clear set of planning
objectives.  The State water quality standards as revised (or proposed)
consistent with §130.17 will provide the primary set of planning goals.
In revising standards it is also important to understand the impli-
cations of a particular policy in terms of the implementing actions
required.  Because standards revision and plan development are two
interdependent processes that should be carried out in the same time
frame, it is necessary to make some simplifying assumptions in order
to initiate each process without depending entirely on the results of
the other process.  Once standards policies have been proposed and
implementing actions for these general policies evaluated, it is
possible to further refine both the standards policies and implement-
ing actions.

    The planning process can make recommendations for revisions to State
water quality standards where necessary.  The States are not required to
adopt these recommendations.  If they are rejected, the plan must then be
modified to be consistent with the established State water quality stand-
ards.  Table 2.2 outlines the general procedures for carrying out both
the standards revision and plan development process.

3.  Determine Schedule for Standards Revision (S130.10(c)(5))

    The continuing planning process submission should include a schedule
for carrying out the standards revision process described above.  The
schedule should indicate the following milestones:

    -  Timing for State transmittal of recommended standards revision
       policy consistent with §130.17 to planning agency(s) developing
       State WQM Plan

    -  Timing of planning agency(s) evaluation of proposed or adopted
       standards revision

    -  Timing of public hearings on proposed or adopted standards revision

    -  Timing for State formal adoption revisions to proposed standards
       recommended by the planning process.

    In general  the State should attempt to develop a standards revision
policy consistent with §130.17 as soon as possible, in order to provide
planning objectives to agency(s) developing the State WQM Plan.  Sufficient
time should be alloted for the State to conduct the procedures required
under State law for standards revision.  Adopted revisions of standards
must be submitted to the EPA Regional Administrator by July 1, 1977.


                           2-39

-------
       Table I 2
                                       uality Ji*,a_nJards and Hater
I.  Standards Revis-,ui
                                                             II.
     'pocess

A.  Development of irnU1
    Standards Policy  iu
    Retain Existing u\-
    nated Beneficial  !> e
    and Protect uii .  i.,'j
    Instream BerPtic. H. i
    Uses at  1983 'Via >
    Levels CoiiMS(>'M  i
    40 CFR 130. 1/
1 .
Z.
3.
        Determine wheuwi
        present u3e class
        fications arc
        appropnu't. tu
        retain exu.Hn'i
        designate ' W:no
        ficial us>;s arid
        protect. e  • .
                                   fedsibility of
                                   upgrading use <-
                                   class ification
                                Develop  alter-
                                native plans
                                to achieve
                                the proposed
                                or adopted
                                standards

                                Determine
                                environmental,
                                social and
                                economic im-
                                pact of  proposed
                                alternatives
                                •to achieve
                                the proposed
                                or adopted
                                standards
                                                                    If  a  state re-
                                                                    jects the plan
                                                                    recommendations,
                                                                    then  the plan
                                                                    must  be  modi-
                                                                    fled  to  conform
                                                                    to  established
                                                                    standard policy
                                                                          4'
                                                                    Complete formal
                                                                    plan  adoption
                                                                    process

-------
F.   Preparation of State Water Quality Management Programs

    The continuing planning process  stages described above are primarily
organizational  and management stages.   The State WQM Plans on the other
hand is the vehicle for determining  the actions to be taken to meet
water quality goals.

    1.   Requirements for Preparation of State WQM Plans (S130.10(a)(4), (5))

        The continuing planning process submission should indicate how the
    State intends to complete the requirements for State WQM Plans, including
    standards revision and antidegradation policy.  The State/EPA Agreement
    should serve as the basis for indicating the State's approach for meet-
    ing the State WQM Plans requirements.   Guidance on meeting these
    requirements is presented in the chapters that follow.

    2.   Review and Certification of  Plans  for Areawide Planning Areas

        Procedures for review and certification of areawide plans pursuant
    to  S131.20Cf) is discussed in Ch.  3.10.

    3.   Designation of Management Agencies (§130.15)

        •   Timing of Designations (§130.15(a))

           The requirement that the  continuing planning process identify
        management agencies (§130.15)  should be fulfilled when specific
        elements of the State WQM Plan have been developed and proposed
        for implementation.  Agencies  to implement elements of the State
        WQM Plan should be indicated in completing elements (n) and (o)
        of 40 CFR Part 131.11.

        •   Designation Prior to State  WQM  Plan Completion (§130.15(c))

           The timing requirements for various elements of the State WQM
        Plan have been discussed in  Ch. 2.3.D.  Management agencies should
        be designated for each part  of the State WQM Plan which can be
        implemented as a discrete plan element.  The designation should be
        timed to coincide with the completion of the corresponding element.

           A detailed discussion of  the legal authority, financial  capa-
        bility, and managerial and institutional capabilities of operating
        and implementing agencies is discussed in Chapters 9-11.
                                   2-41

-------
        Procedures for designating  implementing  and  operating  agencies
        are discussed in Ch.  3.10 as  part  of the procedures  for  review/
        approval  of State WQM Plans.

G.   Outputs:   Description of  State  Continuing Planning
    Process §130.10(a)-(cT

    After each of the major steps in  developing  the  continuing planning
process have been completed,  a description of the overall  process  should
be prepared.   The description should  cover each  of the  process elements
required under §130.10(a)-(c).

    1.   Optimal  Format for Continuing Planning Process  Submission

        For purposes of simplifying the  description  of  these process  ele-
    ments, the continuing planning  process submission might, where appro-
    priate, describe the following  characteristics of the  process  elements:

        .  Purpose -- purpose of element,  including  description  of how the
                      element meets statutory requirements

        .  procedures -- procedures that the State will  use  to carry  out
                         each element in the Continuing Planning Process
                         (including revision of  the  element)

        .  inputs/   -- inputs to the elements,  outputs, and relationships
           outputs      of inputs and outputs to other  elements

        .  timing -- timing of the  element

        .  supporting documents --  any specific  supporting information
                                   required in Part  130

        For example, taking the general  requirement  of  the process des-
    cription which calls for  a description of public participation in
    the Continuing Planning Process (S130.10(a)(l)), the State might
    answer the following questions  in developing this part of  its  process
    description:

        .  purpose -- What is the purpose  of public  participation  at
                      various stages  of  the process?

        .  procedures — How  is an  effective program of public participa-
                         tion structured with respect to the various
                         stages of  planning?  What forms or  techniques of
                         public participation are used? What  institutional
                         arrangements are  used?
                                  2-42

-------
        .   inputs/  -- In what manner is information gathered through
           outputs     public participation used as an input to decision
                       making?  How is the public kept aware of the
                       results or outputs of decisions in the process:

        .   timing -- When do the various public participation activities
                     occur?  How much time is given to the public to
                     respond to decisions made in the process?

        .   supporting documents -- Any additional documents needed to
                                   describe the State's program for public
                                   participation.

        A completed continuing planning process description could thus  be
    organized around the characteristics of each element of the process
    suggested by this format.  A summary of the process description could
    be displayed in a table such as the following (see Table 2.3).  The
    States should be encouraged to develop whatever outline for describing
    their planning process that seems most appropriate.  The significance
    of the format suggested above and the format for a summary of the
    process description is that the State should attempt to develop a very
    simple reference document which would serve as an index for anyone
    interested in the State's water program to understand the way in which
    the program was managed, its program elements, their relationships,
    timing, and interaction with other activities.

H.  Planning Process Adoption and Approval  Procedures

    1.  Planning Process Adoption (S130.40(a))

        All States will be required to revise parts of their continuing
    planning process in order to incorporate substantive changes in the
    processes such as the State/EPA Agreement on carrying out State WQM
    Plans.  All States will also need to reformulate their continuing
    planning process in order to comply with the revised requirements of
    40 CFR Part 130.  Submission of the Continuing Planning Process
    description or elements of the process requiring revision is required
    150 days after the effective date of 40 CFR Parts 130/131 regulations.
    In order to meet this time schedule, the planning process description
    should be formally adopted by the State after appropriate public
    participation before the 150 day period expires.

        Formal adoption of the process entails certification by the
    State agency having authority over water quality planning and imple-
    mentation, that the process will  be followed as the management and
    decision making framework for all activities of that agency.
                                  2-43

-------
Table 2.3  Optional  Format for Summary of
           nescTiption of State Continuing Planning Process
Elements of Process
A. Process Design
1. State Agency Responsible for
Coordinating Continuing Planning
Process and State WQM Plans
2. Statement of Planning Authority
3. Preliminary Description of
Process Requirements
4. Review and Revision Procedures
Requirements
of Part 130
S130.10
(0(11)
-
S130.43
Description of
Flpment






B. Process Inputs
1. Public Participation
2. Intergovernmental Cooperation
and Coordination
3. Program Coordination
a. Water Program Relationships
b. Coordination with other Local,
State, and Federal Programs
S130.10
(a)(2),(O(10)


fc. Preparation of Annual State
1 Strategy

D. State/EPA Agreement (including
Delineation of Planning Areas and
Planning Responsibilities)
1. Segment Classification; Listing of
Basins or Approved Planning Areas
and Segments
2. Designation of Areawide Planning
Areas and Agencies
3. Delegation of Planning Responsi-
bilities
4. Annual Preparation/Revision of
Agreement

E. Review/Revision of Water Quality
Standards and Definition of
Antidegradation Policy
S130.10



















I





















§130.10
.(0(7)
(0(7)
!c)(9)
(0(4)

S130.10
(b)(l)
(0(5)

F. Preparation of State Water Quality
Management Plans
1. Requirements for State WQM
Preparation
2. Review and Certification of Plans
for Areawide Planning Areas
3. Designation of Management Agencies
to Imolement Plans
8130.10
(b)(3)
81 30. 15





















































                                                                          y
G. Outputs: Description of
State Continuing Planning Process
(see above)

H. Planning Process Adoption and Approval
Procedures
1. Planning Process Adoption
2. Submission
3. Review and Approval
S130.40
S130.40 .
5130.41-42














                        2-44

-------
2. Submission (S130.40(b), (c))

   After the State water quality agency has ado;»i.pd  th° description
of the planning process, the Governor or his d«sUy other format
3. Review and Approval (§130.41)

   The Regional Administrator is required Ni .
approve, or disapprove the planning process u
submission by the Governor.

   •   Full Approval
i i n
                                                      conditionally
                                                      days of its
      The Regional Administrator is required tr< ,;.pnv oye a planning
   process description (and so notify the Gove^mi by letter) if
   the process meets the requirements of th^ ]ir>e.  If the
                                                     a schedule for
                                                    >ti-ncation to
      The Regional Administrator may disappvjc^e f.ho entire process
   if it is found grossly deficient and doec '"•,>(' t °
   strate a coherent management approach to icnpi*-^
   elements of a State WOI^1 Plan by the st^'u1 ,r  c?^
   process is disapproved, speci Fi: der.'"1?!.' "•<
   resubmission should be set out in 1 h^ i'^ ;-,: --'•  •
   the Governor.

   .   Withdrawal of Approval (§130.42)

      Any plans developed under the process that
   requirements of 40 CFR Part 131 should be view<••••*
                                                    •jot meet the
                                                    ;->y the Regional
                             2-45

-------
    Administrator as indication  of a possible deficiency in  the
    management approach (e.g.,  the continuing planning  process)  used
    by the State to develop State WQM Plans.

       If the Regional  Administrator finds  deficiencies in State WQM
    Plans or portions of the plans, he should initiate  an inquiry
    into the cause of the deficiency and  ascertain  which elements of
    the continuing planning process were  not  carried  out as  planned,
    and what changes might be needed to make  the  process operate more
    efficiently.

       After conducting an investigation  of the causes  of State  WQM
    Plan deficiency and the relationship  of such  deficiencies  to the
    State's continuing planning  process,  the  Regional Administrator
    may disapprove the continuing planning  process  by formally notify-
    ing the Governor of the affected State, and indicating the specific
    remedy for correcting the inadequacy  of the process and  a  schedule
    for corrective action.

4.  Review and Revision (SI30.43)

    The State's procedure for review and  revision of  its continuing
planning process should be specified in its continuing  planning
process description as suggested in Ch. 2.3.A.
                            2-46

-------
                                CHAPTER 3

                           State Water Quality

                        Management Plan Development
3.1 Scope and Purpose
    State and areawide WQM Plans are required in all areas of each State.
The purpose of these plans is to develop a management program to implement
requirements for water quality standards establishment and revision (S303(c))}
identification of areas where effluent limitations are not sufficient to
meet standards and establishment of total maximum daily loads of pollutants
((S303(d)), implementation of water quality standards (§303(e)), and to carry
out the planning and management requirements of S208 statewide.

3.2 Program Objectives

    A.  Principal Objective

       The overall objective of the Act is to "restore and maintain the
    chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters"
    (Section 101(a)).  To achieve this objective, "it is the national
    goal  that wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality
    which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish,
    and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water be
    achieved by July 1, 1983" (Section 101(a)(2)).  To enable meeting
    the Act's objectives, "it is the national policy that areawide waste
    treatment management planning processes be developed and implemented
    to assure adequate control of sources of pollutants in each  State"
    (Section 101(a)(5)).

       Thus the objective of the State WQM Plan is to define water
    quality standards to implement the goals of the Act, determine
    allowable standards pursuant to Section 303, to develop
    plans for pollution abatement as required in Section 208(b)(2),
    and finally to select management agency(s) to implement the  plan
    as specified in Section 208(c)(2).

    B.  Complementary Objectives

       To complement the water quality goals of Section 101(a)(2), provisions
    of Title II of the Act provide for additional aspects of water quality
    protection such as:

       -  Water conservation and resource utilization through wastewater
         reuse or recycling;
                                   3-1

-------
       - Management of residual  waste;

       - Multiple use of wastewater treatment  systems  and  associated
         lands for such purposes as water supply,  recreation,  aesthetics,
         and fish and wildlife habitats;

       - Protection of ground water quality.

   Any other water-related goals of the planning area,  such  as provision
   of adequate water supply and programs  for land  or water resource manage-
   ment should be identified for consideration in  development  of  the  plans.
   These related goals should be recognized in the planning  process and
   should be incorporated into the plan to the extent  that their  achieve-
   ment would not reduce the cost-effectiveness of the  water quality
   management measures.

       Finally, the results of the planning process should be  coordinated
   with other plans for the area, such  as those discussed  in Ch.  2.

3.3 Program Content

   A. Major Program Components and Requirement Elements

       The required elements of State WQM Plans provide the  basis for
   a continuing planning and management program for water  pollution
   abatement.  These elements form two  major components for  a
   water quality planning and management  program:   analysis  and
   action.  The analytic component of the program  incorporates the follow-
   ing elements:

       • Water Quality Analysis Program

         - Planning Boundaries;
         - Water Quality Assessments (including nonpoint source assessment)
           and Segment Classifications;
         - Inventories and Projections  of Discharges;
         - Revision of Standards;
         - Total Maximum Daily Loads;
         - Wasteload Allocations.
                                         3-2

-------
    The implementation component of the program includes the following
elements:

    • Water Quality Implementation Program

      - Municipal and Industrial Treatment Works Program;
      - Urban Stormwater Management Program;
      - Residual Waste Management Program;
      - Nonpoint Source Management Program;
      - Target Abatement Dates and Schedules of Compliance;
      - Regulatory Program;
      - Management Program -- Management Agency(s) and Institutional
        Arrangements to Supervise and Finance Plan Implementation.

    In addition to these program components, the State WQM Plan is required
to include an environmental assessment, covering both the analytic
and implementation aspects of the plan.

B. Planning Responsibilities

    The State is responsible for developing the total State WQM Plan.  The
State may, however, designate 208 planning agencies to carry out some
or all of the Water Quality Implementation Program elements and provide
much of the analysis needed by the State to finalize the Water Quality
Analysis Program.  In areas which are not designated for 208 planning,
the entire State WQM Plan for that area is to be completed by the State.
Nevertheless, the State may delegate (if these agencies agree) portions
of the planning to substate or Federal  agencies.  In the State/EPA
Agreement for each area, the State must identify the agency responsible
for each of these planning elements.

C. Level of Detail of Plan Elements

    The regulation is very specific in  describing many of the plan
elements.  In other cases, the regulation has been written to provide
latitude for interpreting these elements.  To provide a common interpreta-
tion for these elements, criteria should be applied to determine that the
requirements are met.  A summary of the criteria for meeting the require-
ments of the regulation is found in Table 3.1 (p. 3 -56ff).  These
criteria provide "tests" regarding the  level of detail, factors to be
considered, and overall justification used in meeting each requirement
of the regulation.  The "tests" should  not be viewed as a substitute for
the requirements of the regulation itself, but as a means for interpret-
ing how to meet the requirements.

    In general, the criteria for meeting the requirements of the regula-
tion indicate that each element of the  plan be developed in sufficient
detail to enable implementation of that element.  However, there may
                                      3-3

-------
a valid reason for not proceeding immediately to develop a particular
element of the plan at the level  of detail  indicated in Table 3.1,,
Where it is not clearly understood that a particular water quality
problem exists, or where it is not expected that a control project can
be undertaken to correct a problem in the next five years, the Water
Quality Implementation Program — elements  (h) - (o) (see Table 3,,1) of the
plan can be developed in less detail  than stated in Table 3.1.  In all cases,
the Water Quality Analysis Program — elements (a) - (g) should be
developed at the level of detail  indicated  in Table 3.1, since these
elements provide the basis for developing the implementation measures.
The level of detail of the environmental  assessment will naturally
be dependent on the level of detail of the  implementation program.

    In cases in which elements (h) - (o)  are not developed at the
level of detail indicated in Table 3.1, an  assessment of possible control
measures, regulatory programs, and financial and management arrangements
corresponding to that element should be undertaken.  The decision on
where the required elements can be completed at the level of detail
suggested in Table 3.1 must be included in  the State/EPA Agreement.
Table 3.2 indicates the level of detail to  which elements (h) - (o)
should be developed where an assessment is  sufficient.

D. Planning Methods

    Because water quality problems and priorities in managing these
problems will vary in different areas of the State, the elements of
the State WQM Plan that deal with abatement of different sources of
pollution ((h) - (m) in Table 3.1) may be developed through different
methods of analysis depending on the magnitude of the problem.
Depending on the method of analysis used to develop these elements,
greater or lesser complexity will arise in  assessing how to implement
the abatement measures (elements (n) - (o)  and selecting among alternatives
(element (p)).

    In complex urban-industrial areas, the  requirements of Section 208
and 303 should be developed through a planning process that considers
the interaction of all sources of pollution and management approaches
for abatement of these sources.  The EPA Guidelines for Areawide Waste
Treatment Management (August 1975) should be followed in areas where
208 planning has already been initiated pursuant to 40 CFR Part 35
Interim Grant Regulations.

    The guidance presented in this document recommends alternative
planning methods depending on the nature of pollution problems.  For
complex problem areas these guidelines recommend a planning approach
which is conceptually the same as that recommended in the Guidelines
for Areawide Waste Treatment Management Planning.
                                      3-4

-------
                                TABLE 3.2

                             Assessment for

                   Water Quality Implementation Program
  Category of Plan Elements*

• abatement measure elements
  (e.g.,  element (h), (i),
  (j). (k), (1), (m))
     Level of Detail  of Assessment

• description of existing abatement
  measures and their adequacy and
  effectiveness

• procedure to develop specifications
  for needed abatement measures, and
  proposed date of development of such
  specifications and abatement measures
• regulatory programs elements
  (e.g., element (n))
• description and evaluation of
  existing regulatory programs and
  an indication of whether authority
  exists to implement needed abate-
  ment measures

• procedures and timing for develop-
  ing needed regulatory programs
t management agency and
  financial arrangement
  elements (e.g.,
  element (o))
• indication of agency(s) having
  jurisdiction to deal  with problem

• generalized cost estimate for
  correcting problem

• procedure and timing  for identify-
  ing needed management agency(s)
  and financial arrangement to
  implement abatement measures
*These elements are found in Table 3.1   The elements can be conveniently
arranged into the categories shown above, each of which would be
needed in developing an effective implementation program for any form of
pollution.  No distinction in level  of detail  of the analytic requirements
(Elements (a) - (g) in Table 3.1) should be made.
                                      3-5

-------
3.4 Planning Criteria

    The State WQM Plans will  be evaluated by States and EPA in terms of
their ability to achieve the planning objectives in a given area.   The
Act also provides certain criteria for choosing among the means for
achieving these objectives.

    The following criteria should be used in the planning process, in
plan selection, and will be applied by the States and EPA in plan  review
and approval:

    A. Cost-Effectiveness

       The Federal Water Pollution Control Act specifies cost-effectiveness
    as the criteria for the planning and development of wastewater manage-
    ment programs, in particular as those programs relate to municipal
    treatment works and controls of combined sewer overflows and storm
    sewer discharges.

       EPA has defined cost-effectiveness analysis as a systematic
    comparison of alternatives to identify the solution which minimizes
    total costs to society over time to reliably meet given goals  and
    objectives.  Since Section 208(b)(2)(e) specifies that the plan
    should document the economic, social, and environmental impact of
    plan implementation, the local economic impact (in addition to resource
    costs) must be included in the total  costs to society.  Thus the
    total costs to society to be minimized should include:

       - resource costs;
       - economic costs;
       - social costs;
       - environmental costs;

       In the case of State WQM Plans, effectiveness refers to
    meeting the 1983 goals of the Act while providing for the highest
    practical degree of technical reliability in the pollution control
    alternative that is chosen.

    B. Implementation Feasibility

       Explicit criteria for determining adequacy of the management
    provisions for carrying out waste treatment management are not
    provided in the Act.  This guideline sets forth the following  cri-
    teria, further elaborated in Ch. 9, for evaluating implementation
    feasibility of the management provisions of a plan:
                                     3-6

-------
       - adequate legal  authority;
       - adequate financial  capacity;
       - practicability;
       - managerial  capacity;
       - public accountability.

   C. Public Acceptance

       Since the success of a State WQM Plan depends on its acceptance
   by affected units of government, the acceptability of the plan to
   the general public and elected officials in a planning area should
   also be regarded as a basic planning criterion.   The application
   of this criterion in the planning process is further discussed in
   Ch. 4.

3.5 Planning Sequence

   A. Purpose

       The purpose of the planning process is to systematically evaluate
   alternative means of achieving water quality goals and to formulate a
   plan that can be implemented by a management agency.  The planning
   process should integrate technical needs for pollution abatement and
   management arrangements capable of implementing  the abatement measures,
   and provide for public participation in plan development.

       In order to develop each of the components of a State WQM Plan --
   (1) Water Quality Analysis Program, and(2) Water Quality Implementa-
   tion Program -- two forms of planning are necessary:  technical
   analysis and management/institutional analysis.   The planning process
   can thus be divided into technical and management planning, each of
   which is concerned with analysis and action, but which normally rely
   on different sets of planning expertise.

       The technical planning portion of the planning process involves
   identifying the priority water quality problems  of the area, recog-
   nizing any constraints in dealing with the problems, and developing
   alternatives to achieve water quality goals.  The alternative plans
   may then be evaluated according to the planning  criteria discussed
   in this chapter.
                                         3-7

-------
       Management planning,  which  concerns  selection  of  a management
   agency or agencies  and development  of  appropriate  institutional
   arrangements for plan  implementation,  should  be  conducted  con-
   currently and in coordination with  technical  planning.  Management
   planning should identify  water  quality management  problems,  and
   analyze the capability of existing  agencies and  arrangements to
   carry out the regulatory  and management  requirements  of Section  208.
   Institutional problems, lack of authority, or lack of financial
   capacity for meeting Section 208 requirements should  be identified.
   Alternative means to acquire proper authority, financial capacity,  and
   effective institutional arrangements for plan implementation should be
   developed.   Finally, alternative management agency(s) and  institutional
   arrangements should be evaluated and a single alternative  selected  according
   to criteria discussed  in  this chapter.
       Developing alternative technical and management plans  and selection  of
   a State WQM Plan require  public participation throughout the planning
   process.  Public participation  requirements and  means for  ensuring
  •adequate participation at each  stage in  the planning  process are discussed
   in Ch. 4.

   B. Planning Flow Chart

       Table 3.3 is a  flow chart depicting  a series of steps  to develop
   a State WQM Plan.  Some of the  steps are needed  to complete  required
   plan elements* and  are so denoted in the text accompanying the chart.
   The chart also includes many optional  planning steps  which may prove
   helpful in developing  a coherent plan  to meet the  requirements.

       Table 3.1 includes criteria or  "tests" for determining the factors
   and information to  be  considered and overall  justification used  in
   meeting each requirement  of the regulation.   The guidance  presented
   in this chapter on  each plan element is  related  to the criteria  found
   in Table 3.1.  Both the criteria and guidance sections follow the
   outline of the regulation except where noted  otherwise.

3.6 Technical  Planning

   A. Purpose

       The purpose of technical planning  is to develop a coordinated
   water quality management  strategy to meet 1983 water  quality goals.
   The strategy may be a  combination of:   (1) municipal  wastewater
   treatment systems,  (2) industrial wastewater  pretreatment  or
   treatment, (3) residual waste management, (4) urban stormwater
   management, and (5) nonpoint source management.   Implementation


*uenoted in the accompanying text  as Element (a), (b), (c),  etc.,
corresponding to 40 CFR Part 131.11 (a) - (o).
                                         3-8

-------

X
u
l-<



(Q
!•«:->
C
14 
m   5

£  6
                                                                                                                g
                                                                                                               i v
                                                                                                               1 *J
                                                                                                               1 l-l
                                                                                                               i <
  (0 >   41

!g-d»3
I -H (4 C U
i  w C » rt
I  Q. M rH G
! O V fr H
                                                                                                                          « CU -H 0>

                                                                                                                          •H    *J 0
                                                                                                                  (X
                                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                                 : u
                                                                                                                 ' c
                                                                                                                       V tUjr-t 00 WK   At

                                                                                                                       ? d  > C o *j u P
                                                                                                                                 (0 -H
                                                                                                                                   ett
                                                                                                                                   rt
                                                                                                                                 at «
                                                                           u o.
                                                                          "•§
         I   s
         J    X
y    ^
                                                                                  i-i«
                                                                                  o u
                                                                                  h M
                                                                                  u 3 •
                                                                                  C o
                                                                                  0«

                                                                                     tM •
                                                                                  « o

                                                                                  -H >.
                                                                                  tJ W
                                                                                jr « o
                                                                                y c M
                                                                                q) I-i at
                                                                                o at u •
                                                                                u *•* <8
                                                                                O.r-1 U

                                                                                5'. o ca
                                                                                ^ »-i u

                                                                                a? „
                                                                                0) OJ O
                                                                                        U 0
                                                                                               •S
                                                                                                                    I
                                                                                                                     oo d
                                                                                                                     « -H



                                                                                                                    •O 13
                                                                                                                     0) 01
                                                                                                                     h. t.
    C -H
   •H p
   *J CT


   455
                                                                                           5 o. «
                                                                                           •a a)
                                                                                              13
                                                                 -s-
                                                                 o


                                                                 o

•H
4) (0
> *J

u S
RJ M X
O O -tJ *J
M >M ff C






















a. ^ «
o.f> rt e
< -H 3 .
§o 0
                                                                                                                -. C *'
                                                                                                               *w a> a
                                                                                                                  no ai
                                                                                                                  •< a
                                                                               3-9

-------
M li
o fa
*M -0
ai - a
n u u a
dec
O Q 41 G
0) -4 S Q 0
-O « ti W -H
3 -H 0 M M
U O M « >
C H Of « V
w
'

•o
•*
i-l *M
•H O QB
« ° 3
•J C rJ
« o =>
Q i-4 4J
W (9
O. D. «
O -r4 fe
rH b
S3§
Q> 0) rH
o a fa


o
*
01
0) S»
C -H *w
10 *J -H
i-t 0]
r-  V >
> 4J -H
j-» a <; a
n *o a>
v •-« u
 >*-( i— t ro
1 gMB.>
o a) • *
O CO rH CS
O
s

•0 *w
0) (0
C V-i rH
d V  -H
4J *j qj
•H ^i CJ O* 3C
(X V
e *j
CQ



S9

•S

^








^
§
^ -a
fa rH 01
CO 4J
rM *J O
A CO
C « r-t
-H £ OJ
fri C CO
o
12 1°
^ c w c
^ o v
l»»
5 '
0)
u
V4


T^ U tH
r-4 OJ «
•H  •*-< c
u H a u M

1*""""


X
/

















OUTPUTS
X
5
u
r«* •
^t n
jO
. S
3 I
•-I M
1 s
T) e
u c • o
« « B u iH vt «
*J O C » *» -O
a u -H 01 > « *l
U V  « « -H fl K »
P B 00 => U, w 3 S 0
a. a> BO* o c cr 6 a>
4J P-* -H it Tt
p U d K CO^rHW
o ca* uoiaifoc
•O * *J > c *j *J -H d
S ai rHtttrHeoaood
-H ^ fc3UMZ3HCUZ
0> 3


< 00





























M
4J
*

«

«r<
«J
«
4J
S
W
5
a
rH
MM
(M
«
e
 >
« 0 5 
0}
C
^
0>
i-H
<:
«
c
1
o

-<
4^
*J
?

ID
T3
M
<0
•o
c
4
*J
«
U

•H
*J
CJ
C
0)
f-l





rH
cd
U
wl
C
&
u
fl
o
AJ

60
5
•0
B
O
fr
U
S
O

















9
rH
fa


T_E
                          3-10

-------
of these abatement measures is to be achieved through regulatory
measures such as local ordinances and state legislation, capital
construction of wastewater treatment facilities and through improved
management of stormwater systems.

    Since technical planning will be shaped by the particular
problems of an area, the planning procedures in this guideline are
offered primarily as an organizational framework for planning.
Emphasis accorded each part of the framework will be largely a
matter of planning judgment.  In developing a water planning
management strategy, however, particular attention should be paid
to pollution controls other than traditional, capital intensive
structural methods.

   The technical planning process should be designed so as to
place the greatest emphasis on water quality problems that are
solvable with existing technology and sources of funding.  The water
quality problems that should receive the greatest priority
initially are municipal and industrial point source problems,
and nonpoint source problems that can be dealt with through
better management practices and future stormwater systems that
can be better designed.  Lower priority should be placed on non-
point source and stormwater problems that require large capital
investments for their solution.  For each type of water quality
problem, however, priority attention should be placed on
regulatory approaches which will help prevent problems from
occurring and thereby lessen the need for remedial pollution
abatement.

B. Inputs

   1. Information from 303(e) Basin Plans and Facilities Plans

     Available information from Phase I 303(e) basin plans and
   facilities plans provide the basic inputs for planning.  Facilities
   plans under Title II of the Act, or preceding facility plans under
   18 CFR and Section 3(c) of the Water Quality Act of 1965, should be
   coordinated with State WQM Plans as stated in Ch. 2.

   2. Information from NPDES Permits

     Information on discharges into navigable water available
   through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
   should be consulted.  Terms and conditions of any permits already
   issued to dischargers should be accounted for in formulating pollu-
   tion control strategies for the second round of permits.
                               3-11

-------
   3.  Related Hater Management  Information

      Much of the information necessary for  developing  an  effective
   State WQM Plan may be available  from related water management
   programs and studies.  Those which  may be especially useful  include:

      - Basin Studies under the Water  Resources Planning Act;

      - Urban Studies of the U.  S.  Army Corps of  Engineers;

      - Flood Plain Information  Studies of the U.  S. Geological
        Survey and the U.  S. Army Corps of Engineers;

      - State and Local  Water Supply Studies and  Data.

   4.  Goals Other than Water Quality

      While the State WQM Plan  is concerned  with  water  quality, selection
   of the final plan may affect other  community goals.   It is  therefore
   important to establish an understanding of community goals  and  plans,
   especially with respect to housing, economic development, transporta-
   tion, education, recreation,  other  environmental  goals, etc.  The
   relationship between these goals and water quality and  other environ-
   mental goals should be understood from the outset of the planning
   process.  Public participation in the planning process  is an effective
   way of defining the relationship between  community goals.

   5.  Technical Information
      A bibliography of technical  studies  related  to  the  various  parts
   of this guideline is provided  at  the  end  of this document.

C.  Conduct Hater Quality Analysis

   1.  Establish Planning Boundaries  -  Element  (a)

      Ch.  2 provides guidance on  initial selection of planning  areas.
   Adjustments to initial planning boundaries  may  be  desirable  in
   order to encompass areas  having particular  water quality problems
   or in order to be coordinated  with  other  planning  activities in  an
   area.  However, modification of planning  boundaries necessitates
   change in the State/EPA Agreement.
                                  3-12

-------
2. Specify Water Quality Standards and Antidegradation Policy -
   Element (e)

   a. Overview of Standards Revision Process

      Recommendation for revision of standards is needed for two
   general situations:   first, to adequately protect existing
   beneficial  uses (including high quality waters for which exist-
   ing standards are not stringent enough),  and second, to propose
   upgrading of existing use classifications in order to achieve
   the 1983 goal in Section 101(a)(2) of the Act, wherever attainable.

      In either of these situations, the recommended standards should
   include the following basic characteristics:

      1) Appropriate Beneficial  Uses Should Be Indicated and Categorized:

         Beneficial uses would include water supply, propagation of
      fish, shellfish and wildlife, recreation, agricultural,
      industrial, and other uses of water including navigation.
      The existing water quality supporting these beneficial uses
      would have to be maintained, protected, or improved.  These
      uses should be consistent with overall public health and the
      general  welfare as opposed to particular needs for water use
      which might preclude enjoyment of other uses sought by the
      public in general.

      2) Adequate Criteria To Support the Uses Should Be Included
         in the Standards':

         Both  narrative and numerical criteria should be specified
      at a level needed to protect the existing and proposed beneficial
      uses.  The criteria should cover as many pollutant substances
      as are present or potentially present in a stream, and would
      require  limitation in order to protect beneficial uses.   The
      values chosen for numerical criteria should be consistent with
      those recommended in the EPA document, Quality Criteria for Mater,
      published pursuant to Section 304(a) of the Act.

      3) Antidegradation Policy:

         The State should determine how existing water quality will
      be protected through implementation of appropriate point and
      nonpoint source controls to be specified in the State
      WQM Plan.  If the State chooses to allow some deterioration
                                 3-13

-------
      of existing water quality,  it must meet the  requirements  indicated
      in Part 130.17 as well  as  the substantive requirements  of Federal
      law protecting existing water uses on Federal  lands.  The specific
      beneficial  uses and necessary criteria to protect these beneficial
      uses should be indicated for waters to be covered by  the  State's
      antidegradation policy  and  implementation program.

      4) Other Technical  and  Procedural  Requirements:

         In addition to the basic characteristics  described above,  the
      recommendation for standards revision and the  development of  an
      antidegradation policy  should conform with the detailed technical
      and procedural  guidance on  standards revision  contained in Ch.  5,

   b.  Relationship between Standards Revision Process  and State WQM Plan
      DevelopmeTTt

      General procedures for  carrying out both the standards  revision
   and plan development process  are- presented in Ch. 2.3.E  and  Table 2.2.
   The State is responsible for  determining the schedule, interactions,
   and planning responsibilities  under these procedures in  the  State/EPA
   Agreement.  It is essential that the first three  standards revision
   steps described for both protecting existing beneficial  uses and
   upgrading uses be completed as expeditiously as possible in  order to
   provide planning targets for  the State WQM Planning Process.  It should
   be  possible to complete these  basic steps without necessarily completing
   all the technical  conditions  of the standards revision process.

      In oreparing the proposed  implementation plans for the  standards
   policy, information and analysis on the costs and impacts  of the
   standards policies should  be  developed.  This information  should enable
   refining the choices to be made regarding the stringency of  anti-
   degradation policy and the feasibility of upgrading use  classifications
   in  order to attain the 1983 goal.

3. Assess Water Quality Problems  and Classify Segments - Elements (b),  (d)

   a.  Purpose of Water Quality Assessment

      Once the boundaries of  a planning area have  been established, a
   water quality assessment should be performed to start the  planning
   cycle.  As more information becomes available,  the cycle should  be
   repeated annually and the  assessment revised if necessary.  Much of
   the initial assessment may be done on a preliminary basis.  The  main
                               3-14

-------
purpose of the assessment 1s to act as a first step to begin the
area's Phase II Planning and also to act as a preliminary indication
of the type and extent of the planning which will  be necessary.

   The water quality assessment and segment classification will
provide inputs to all phases of the planning process in general,
and specific inputs to several elements of the State WQM Plan.   The
assessment should provide the description of water quality called
for in Section 305(b) of the Act.  The assessment should also
identify point and nonpoint source problem areas which should receive
detailed analyses and waste load allocations.  It will further provide
inputs to the State Strategy and possible revisions to the State-EPA
Agreement on timing and level of detail (5130.11).

   The assessment and classification process will  be discussed in
the form of the following suggested steps to meet the requirement
of elements (b) and (d):

   1) Obtain Water Quality Data

      The assessment should be based on all existing water quality
   data for the planning area.  Sources for this information may
   include EPA's STORET System, Phase I State WQM plans, the U.  S.
   Geological Survey, the Soil Conservation Needs Inventory, Bureau
   of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, and the U. S. Forest
   Service.  EPA has published a nonpoint source control users
   handbook which provides additional information for nonpoint source
   data.  Water quality data should be broken down according to  types
   of receiving water.

      Surface waters may be classified as free flowing streams,  tidal
   rivers, estuaries, coastal zones, lakes, and reservoirs.  Ground-
   water represents a separate category.

   2) Compare Existing Water Quality to Phase II State Water Quality

      Phase II State WQM Plans are to be based on meeting the 1983 goals
   of the Act.  These goals will be reflected in Phase II Water  Quality
   Standards.  (See guidance on standards revision, element (e)  in
   Ch. 3.6.C.2.)
                               3-15

-------
Initial assessments may be conducted prior to  revision  and
adoption of these standards.   In this case, water quality should
be compared to EPA's Quality  Criteria for Water document prepared
pursuant to Section 304(a) of the Act.This document lists
criteria which describe various levels of quality for varying
uses and habitats.  The appropriate criteria should be  selected
on the basis of local conditions.

   In comparing existing water quality data to water quality
standards, the need for additional information will undoubtedly
arise.  This need may involve data for varying flow conditions
(dry weather, wet weather, ice cover, etc.), data for NFS related
criteria (sediment, nutrients, salinity, etc.), or simply additional
data to increase the reliability of decisions  made for critical
areas.  Requests for additional data should be prioritized  and
transmitted to State monitoring program personnel (SI30.30).  Based
on immediately available data, comparisons between existing  water
quality and the levels of water quality needed to meet the  1983 goals
should be made wherever possible.

3) Identify Existing and Potential Mater Quality Problem Areas

   Water quality problems must be identified.   They should be. described
in terms of existing or potential violations of water quality stan-
dards.  Approriate 304(a) criteria may be used in determining problem
areas.  Potential problem areas should also be identified on the basis
of near violations during noncritical periods, trends in historical
water quality data, and areas of projected development or growth
(element (c)).  The provisions of the State antidegradation policy
(element(e)) apply to all waters of the State, but existing and
potential problem areas should be identified for immediate action.

4) Specify Water Quality Standards Parameters  which Are Violated

   For each segment where water quality standards are violated, or
expected to be violated, the  violated parameters (including  thermal)
should be identified.  The severity of the problem should be estimated
from the degree and frequency of violations and the loss of desired
beneficial uses.

5) Identify the Category of Sources which Contribute to Violations

   Point sources contributing to any existing  or potential  water
quality standard violation should be identified as municipal or
industrial.  Industrial sources should be further identified by
industrial category.  Contributing nonpoint sources (including
upstream areas contributing to the build-up of the nonpoint source
problem) should be identified by category and  sub-category where
                            3-16

-------
necessary.  The categories should be consistent with those
identified in the State-EPA Agreement on timing and level  of detail
(S130.ll).  This step in the assessment process should provide
inputs to revisions of the agreement as new problems are identified
and others are found to be less severe than anticipated.

6) Identify Specific Sources Contributing to Violations

   The assessment should identify specific point sources and limited
geographic areas or owner/operators for nonpoint sources which
contribute to existing or potential water quality standards violations.

   The sources should be classified according to the flow condition
under which they occur:

   - continuing or seasonal point source
       (example:  industrial source discharging continuously or on
       a seasonal basis)

   - intermittent point source
       (example:  storm and combined sewers discharge after rainfall)

   - nonpoint source
       (example:  runoff from agriculture, silviculture, construction,
       and mining)

Point source descriptions should be consistent with the source
inventory produced under element (c).

7) Determine Segments Requiring Effluent Controls More Stringent than
   Base Levels

   Some segments with existing or potential water quality standards
violations will require controls more stringent than BPWTT and BAT
to prevent water quality standards violations.  On a preliminary
basis, these segments should be identified for further analysis and
classified as water quality segments.  Analyses performed in connec-
tion with Phase I Plans should give good preliminary information, but
it should be emphasized that all water quality standards criteria
should be considered, including those related to nonpoint sources.
Subsequent analyses performed to determine maximum daily loads
(element (f)) may indicate that the segment is actually effluent
limited and that it should be reclassified.
                            3-17

-------
      8) Determine Needs  for Further Planning

         At this stage in planning,  the need for more  detailed  planning
      should be determined based on  the following distinctions:

         - Those areas where it is expected  that the effluent limitations
           for point sources required by July  1, 1983  (BAT/BPWTT)  will  not
           be sufficient  to meet the 1983 water quality goals will  require
           detailed planning for both point  and nonpoint sources.   For
           point sources, waste load allocations will  be necessary—see
           element (g).  For nonpoint sources,  a gross allotment for exist-
           ing nonpoint source pollution loads  will need to  be  established--
           see element (f).  Detailed planning  and establishment of nonpoint
           source control needs (element (j))  will also be necessary.

         - All other areas will require application of the effluent limita-
           tions for point sources required  by July 1, 1983  (BAT/BPWTT).
           Where the State has established a policy of antidegradation,
           higher levels  of abatement than BAT/BPWTT,  as well as Best Manage-
           ment Practices for new nonpoint sources may be required.  However,
           if the State certifies, pursuant  to  SI30.11, that no nonpoint source
           problems will  exist over  the planning period, the requirement for
           nonpoint source planning  for new  sources will not apply.

      These determinations may result in a need to revise the State/EPA
      Agreement (5130.11) regarding  the phasing and level of detail of  planning.

4. Estimate Existing/Projected Wasteloads -  Element (c)

   a. Municipal and Industrial Inventory

      The inventories and projections should serve as  a starting point
   for consideration of point source dischargers ranking.  They should  be
   of sufficient detail to allow decision makers and the public necessary
   information on the relative loading, rankings, and  restrictions on
   sources.  Inventories  will also be utilized in the  development  of the
   annual State Strategy.  Therefore, it may be appropriate  to  include
   sources with no loading, as in the case of  non-overflow lagoons, in
   order that the total scope of water pollution control efforts for
   point sources may be realized.

      In order to account for priorities between basins, States may choose
   to display the municipal priority list for  an entire State,  identifying
   those facilities within the priority area.
                                  3-18

-------
b. Existing Land Use Patterns

   Existing land use patterns should be categorized in such a way
as to be able to assign pollutant loadings to the categories of
land use.  In the case of point sources of pollution, land use
categories should be based on type of activity (e.g., commercial,
industrial, residential).  In the case of nonpoint sources, land
use categories may be based on types of activity and also on the
characteristics of the land on which the activity takes place (e.g.,
soil, slope, rainfall, cover, etc.), where appropriate, to aid in
predicting pollutant loading from different land uses.

   The size units of land categorized for purposes of predicting
pollutant generation should vary depending on the degree to which
the land is developed and the complexity of the conditions under which
pollutants are generated.  The size units recommended in the criteria
for carrying out requirements of element (c) are for purposes of
standardizing projections.  Where the State or designated agency has  a
different method for classifying land use and different data bases,  these
may be used.  Official planning agencies should be consulted in obtaining
land use information.

c. Demographic and Economic Projections

   Estimates of the existing population, employment, and land use in
the basin should be assembled as a basis for assessing existing patterns
of the generation of pollutants, and as a basis for projecting the
amount and spatial distribution of future wasteloads.  These projec-
tions should cover the next 20 years in five-year increments.  Particular
emphasis should be placed on the effect that implementation of the State
WQM Plan, local growth policies, plans for attainment and maintenance
of air quality, and other regional plans for transportation, solid waste
management, water supply, or public investment may have on historical
trends of populations, employment, and land use.

   Population data are available from the Bureau of Economic Analysis
(U. S. Department of Commerce).  They should be updated with the most
recent demographic and economic projections developed by the Bureau
of Economic Research Service (U. S. Department of Agriculture), and
with projections used as a basis for State planning for air quality
management.  In general, SERIES E projections developed by BEA, or
comparable projections developed by the State should be used as overall
growth projections for the planning area.  The use of any projections
that deviate significantly from BEA should be justified.  BEA projections
are available for States, BEA economic regions, Water Resource Council
Regions, and for Standard Metropolitan Areas, all of which generally
                               3-19

-------
 include more than a single county.  If it is necessary to dis-
 aggregate BEA projections, the assumptions made in the disaggregation
 process should be made explicit.  Historical trends of county popula-
 tion and employment data are available upon request from BEA.

 d. Projected Land Use Patterns

   Using the land use categories previously developed, and based
 upon the previous demographic and economic projections, future land
 use changes should be projected.  The projections of land use plan-
 ning agencies should be consulted in making these projections.
 Assumptions concerning the allocation of future population and em-
 ployment to areas undergoing development should reflect commercial,
 residential, and industrial land use densities as established in
 approved land use plans (if such plans exist).

 e.  Haste Load Projections

    Based on existing data and projections of population and employment,
 and factors of wasteload generation per unit of area or unit of activity,
 existing wasteloads* should be estimated and future wasteloads pro-
 jected for increments of five years, covering land areas and sources
 such as residential, commercial, and industrial.   At a minimum,
 projections of municipal  and industrial wasteloads must be made.
 Wasteload factors should be based on existing wasteload data for
 the area.   Where it is necessary to project industrial loads, the
 load factors for industrial activities may be based on existing
wasteload data for the area.  Where it is necessary to project
 industrial  loads, the load factors for industrial  activities may be
 based on standard loading factors if specific forecasts cannot be
 obtained from industries planning to locate in the area.  From the
wasteload projections, as well  as monitoring information, a materials
 balance (for the planning area) for each significant pollutant should
 be constructed to relate  instream water quality to pollution genera-
 tion and transport where possible.
*The wasteload factors used in the estimations should be specific
enough to aid in the development of alternative abatement measures.
For example, rather than relying on a single loading factor for
agriculture or mining activities, a series of loading factors that
are sensitive to variations in pollution generation should be
developed for various subcategories of these activities.
                         3-20

-------
      While estimates of existing and projected nonpoint source  wasteloads
   are not required plan elements, it is recommended that estimates  of
   existing nonpoint source loading be developed.   In the case of non-
   point sources, a materials balance may be based on average factors
   for wasteload generation per unit of area or unit of activity,
   depending on the nature of the problem.   (Refer to Ch. 7). Gener-
   ally, it is not necessary to attempt to project future nonpoint
   source loads, since the approach taken to nonpoint sources should be
   to establish best management practices for new  nonpoint source acti-
   vities.  An exception perhaps exists where complex decisions  regarding
   structural solutions (stormwater treatment, for example) are  involved.

5. Estimate Maximum Allowable Load - Element (f)

   In order to classify as water quality or effluent limited, it may
be necessary to estimate the level of pollutant loading that could
be allowed in the segment without violating water  quality standards.
This level could then be compared with the existing and projected waste-
loads for the segment.  However, the calculation of maximum allowable
daily loads may require extensive data collection, analysis, and model-
ing.  The State is only required to establish maximum allowable  loads
where it has classified the segment as water quality limited. However,
where doubt exists as to proper classification, it is recommended that
maximum allowable loads be established to make classifications more
definite.

   a. Critical Conditions for Calculating Total Maximum Daily Loads

      Critical or design conditions are those stream flow conditions which
   serve as the basis for determining if water quality standards can be
   met for each parameter.  Stream flow conditions likely to present the
   greatest stress to fish, shellfish, and aquatic wildlife in the par-
   ticular area should be chosen as critical or design conditions.

      Traditional stream analysis often makes use  of a low flow-high
   temperature design condition (e.g., once in 10-year, 7-day low flow).
   This flow condition may be appropriate for a steady-state stream
   analysis involving constant rates of point source pollutant discharge.
   However, choice of design flow conditions for point source analysis
   should take account of such factors as ice cover and seasonal point
   source discharge which may cause more severe stress on life in the
   stream than occurs at low flow.
                              3-21

-------
   Wet weather flow conditions may be appropriate for  analysis  of
nonpoint and such intermittent point source  discharges as  storm
sewers.  Such factors as intensity and duration  of rainfall,  time
since previous rainfall, pollutant accumulation  rates  (including
effect of cumulative build-up of pollutants  on bottom  life in
streams), and stream flow previous to rainfall should  be considered
in selecting design conditions for nonpoint  source analysis.

   A range of flow, meterological, and seasonal  conditions should
be considered in choosing design conditions.   In general,  for point              *
sources, continuous discharges present the worst pollution under
low flow, dry weather conditions.   For pollutants transported in
runoff, critical conditions will be rainfall-related,  but  may occur
under a variety of flow conditions.
                                                                                *
   - Dry Weather Conditions

     An analysis of the severity of pollution  problems associated
   with dry weather conditions should be  conducted.  Dry weather
   flow conditions which are critical for maintaining  biological
   life or recreation in or on the waters should be  noted, a  design
   condition for dry weather should be chosen, and its average  dura-
   tion and frequency of occurrence should be  specified.   In  select-
   ing the critical low flow condition, it should be kept  in  mind that
   emergency procedures may be required to meet  water  quality standards
   when the design flow condition is met  or  exceeded.                          41

   - Wet Weather Conditions

     An analysis of the severity of pollution  problems associated
   with wet weather stream conditions should be  conducted. Any wet
   weather flow conditions which are critical  in terms of  maintaining
   biological life or recreation in or on the  waters should be  noted.

      A design condition for wet weather  flow  conditions should be
   chosen, and its intensity, duration, and  antecedent conditions
   specified (e.g., 1/2 inch rain per hour,  for  two  hours, after
   two weeks of dry weather).

   1) Relationship of Maximum Daily Load  to  Water Quality  Standards              *

      Each water quality standards parameter (including thermal)
   being violated or expected to be violated in  the segment must
   be identified, and the total maximum daily  loads  of these  pollutants
                               3-22
I

-------
         which may be added to the water body by an  point and nonpoint
         sources without violating the standard at the design condition
         must be determined.*  This determination may require use of math-
         ematical modeling (see discussion of models  below).

            Each total load limitation must be at least as stringent as
         necessary to achieve the applicable standard under the critical
         water quality conditions prescribed by the standards, and any
         conditions which should be anticipated in the individual  situation,
         such as seasonal waste discharges.  It must  include provisions for
         seasonal variation and for a margin of safety which takes into
         account any lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between
         effluents and water quality as well as any uncertainty resulting
         from insufficient data, including data from  nonpoint sources.
         Where thermal standards may be violated, thermal  loads must be
         separately estimated as provided in 5131.11(f)(2).  For all
         parameters, the antidegradation principle applies (see Ch.  5 of
         these guidelines).

         2) Seasonal Variation and Margin of Safety

            The purpose of choosing a design condition for establishing
         total maximum daily loads is to determine a  stream flow condition
         likely to cause severe stress on living organisms and to ensure
         that water quality standards are met even under these conditions.
         Design conditions should thus represent extremes in pollutant
         stress on the stream.  It is possible, however, that even more
         extreme stresses might occur under more unusual climatic conditions,
         Thus, the choice of a design condition should include an estimate
         of the likelihood of more extreme conditions occuring.
*Because of the difficulty of predicting pollutant loading under wet
weather conditions at the specific time interval  of the design condition,
it may be more practical  to establish the maximum allowable load for runoff
related pollutants over a longer time period such as a month or year.
(This is only feasible, however, for non-biodegrading pollutant parameters.)
Nevertheless, the long-term*allowable load constraint should be sufficiently
stringent so that peak loading at high flow periods would not be expected
to violate water quality standards.   Longer term allowable loads may be
especially appropriate for bodies of water in which build-up of pollutants
may be a problem (e.g., impoundments, lakes, estuaries, or problems  of
benthic deposits in general).  The long-term allowable load should be  such
that the natural flushing capacity of the receiving water is not exceeded.
                                     3-23

-------
      The margin of safety, on the other hand,  should  reflect
   lack of certainty about the characteristics  of stream discharges.
   In the case of point sources,  there may be considerable  variation
   in the rate of loading of the  discharge.  The  margin  of  safety
   should cover the possible coincidence of peak  loading from  these
   sources.  Margins of safety for nonpoint sources  should  be  based
   on the degree to which the magnitude of the  existing  nonpoint source
   can be calculated and the variability of the rate of  loading under
   the design condition for which loads are established.  The  calcula-
   tion of a margin of safety for nonpoint sources cannot be based  on
   information on variability of  individual  discharges,  but rather
   should be based on observed variability of gross  loading from
   nonpoint sources, either in the particular area or  as  documented
   in the literature.

b. Establishing of Thermal Loads

   Same general guidance as fora.above.

c. Proportion of the Maximum Daily Load for Point and  Nonpoint Sources

   For both dry weather and wet weather flow conditions,  the maximum
daily load consistent with meeting water quality  standards  should be
broken down into the proportion of the load (for  each  parameter) from
point sources (both continuous and intermittent)  and nonpoint  sources.
This breakdown requires knowledge of the existing proportion of point
and nonpoint loadings in the segment under the  design  flow  conditions.
Both point and nonpoint source loadings could be  reduced proportionally
to a level consistent with the maximum allowable  load  for all  sources.
However, there are a variety of procedures that could  be  used  in load
allocation.

   A tradeoff between these loadings may be necessary  in order to
develop the point source load allocation under  element (g). The
allotment for point sources should be the basis for  calculating
individual point source load allocations, while the  nonpoint source
allotment should be used to determine the target  level of nonpoint
source loading reduction needed for all nonpoint  sources.  This
target reduction for nonpoint sources will provide a guide  in  select-
ing the degree of abatement needed for each category of  existing
nonpoint source generating activities and in choosing  Best  Management
Practices.

   In establishing the gross allotment for nonpoint  sources (which
may contribute substantial amounts of the conservative substances),
it is necessary to consider to what extent the  loads established
                            3-24

-------
under wet weather conditions will be adequate when the flow in the
stream subsides and the conservative substances remain as deposits
in the stream bed.

   An allowance for growth should be made in the allocation.  The
purpose of alloting some of the pollutant load to growth is to allow
new municipal and industrial discharges to locate in an area without
imposing waste!oad restrictions that are far more stringent than
those required of existing discharges.

   The allowance that may be reserved for future growth should be
calculated primarily for point sources, since it is not feasible to
attempt to relate individual nonpoint source discharging activities
to specific discharge amounts.  The approach that should be taken
toward new nonpoint source discharge is further explained in Ch. 7.
In making an allowance for growth, there are a number of important
considerations:

   - The regulatory program required under element (n) should specify
     under what conditions new discharges would be allowed to locate
     in an area and include authority to restrict location of dis-
     charges so as to implement the allowance for growth specified
     in the plan.

   - An allowance for growth in wasteloads must be consistent with
     the policy that the State adopts regarding antidegradation (see
     element (e).

d. Use of Mathematical Models in Establishing Maximum Allowable
   Daily Loalf?

   Modeling is generally the appropriate method of ascertaining total
maximum daily loads and determining the effects of the proposed
alternative abatement strategies.  The modeling technique selected
depends on the nature and complexity of the problem.  The technique
should represent the minimum level of sophistication needed to provide
for wasteload allocations.

   Results of modeling may reveal that previous segment classifications
have not been accurate.  After the modeling has been completed,
segment classifications should be reviewed and revised if necessary.
                           3-25

-------
6- Classify Segments

   Water bodies may be classified as "effluent limited",  where the
base level effluent limitations required under the Act are sufficient
to meet water quality standards.   Where higher levels of  abatement would
be needed to meci  b^r.dards, the  water body should be classified as
"water quality nivrttd".   Segment classification should be based on
comparing the existing and projected loads  with the maximum allowable
load.  However, if maximum allowable loads  have not been  established,
and the segment ^cri^ ' ?ter quality standards  it can be classified as
effluent limited.   This classification cannot  be assured  if new waste
loads were introduced to the segment.  The  development of abatement
measures for various; pollutant sources will depend on the segment classi
fication.

   a> Effluent Limi td_n'ons Segments

      In any segments classified  as effluent limited, application of
   Best Practicable Treatment is  required of all point sources, other
   than publicly-owned treatment  works by July 1, 1977, by which time
   owned treatment works are required to apply effluent limitations
   based on secondary treatment.   By July 1, 1983, point  sources
   other than publicly owned treatment works are to utilize Best
   Available fech,io'!oq; (BAT), while by such time, publicly-owned
   treatment work, ire to utilize Best Practicable Waste  Treatment
   Technology (BPW'IT).

      In addition IM the requirement to meet BAT/BPWTT, the State may
   establish an antuiegradation policy in segments that can be classi-
   fied as effluent limited based on the existing discharges to the
   segment.  An .mti degradation policy entails establishing definite
   limitations on further deterioration of  water quality  in given stream
   segments.  Where the State seeks to establish such limits, it should
   classify the segment, as water  quality limited, since it will be
   necessary to develop maximum allowable loads and individual load
   limitations in order to carry  out the antidegradation  policy,,

                 
-------
   The analysis should be completed for each pollutant which is  in
violation of water quality standards.  Each source contributing
that pollutant to the segment should be identified and alternative
remedial measures considered.  The final  control  strategy for the
segment should reflect a combination of control  methods which will meet
water quality standards.

   1) Select Eligible Sets of Waste Load Reductions to Meet
      Maximum Daily Load"

      The maximum daily load consists of a proportion allowed for
   point sources and an allotment for nonpoint sources.  It is not
   necessary to allocate the allotment for nonpoint sources to par-
   ticular dischargers.  The allotment for nonpoint sources should
   be used as an overall guide in selecting abatement measures for
   such sources.  On the other hand, the proportion of the total
   load that is established for point sources should be allocated to
   individual sources.  There are many possible  sets of individual
   point source load allocations.  Alternative allocations should
   be considered in the process of developing point source abatement
   measures.

      a) Point Source Load Allocation --Element  (g)

         (1) General Procedures for Point Source Load Allocation

             The purpose of waste load allocations is to formally
         state the actions necessary to maintain or improve the
         quality of the affected waters.   State  and Federal water
         quality agencies must have waste load allocations (1) in
         order to establish a basis for assigning effluent limita-
         tions and issuing permits to individual  dischargers in
         order to meet water quality standards and (2) to identify
         and provide a basis for ranking needs of municipalities
         for which planning and possible construction of federally-
         assisted facilities should be initiated within the next
         five years.

             A State WQM Plan only prescribes the abatement strategy
         for individual sources generally.  While the plan does not
         determine detailed engineering specifications for particular
         projects, some knowledge of alternative facilities and non-
         structural alternatives and their associated costs is
         obviously required to develop feasible, effective allocations
         which implement the water quality standards.
                             3-27

-------
     The allocations for each industrial  or municipal  dis-
charger should result in a total  effluent allowance.   It
should be recognized that restrictions may result in  the
discharger being forced to close  or reduce its operation
to avoid being subjected to possible enforcement actions;
(through action on a permit or other enforcement mechanism
under State law).  To determine feasible  limts, the analysis
should consider generally the alternative technical  capa-
bilities available to each discharger. Where standards
are being violated because of point source discharges,
the technical  requirements for some point sources may be
beyond base  level effluent limitations.   In addition,
existing information on the trade-offs and total costs
among combinations of alternatives for multiple sources
should be reviewed in search of the mix of processes  at
all facilities which will result  in the most efficient
overall plan for achieving standards when all sources  are
in operation.   Detailed consideration of  technical  and
economic trade-offs between alternatives  may be derived
from 201 plans or in 208 plans for designated areas.
Information obtained from the detailed analysis in 201
plans should be reflected in State WQM Plans.

    (a) Coordination with Permits

        The Section 402 National  Pollutant Discharge  Elimination
    System Permit Program is designed to  ensure that pollutant
    dischargers will not exceed prescribed levels.  Since no
    permits may be issued for point sources which are  in con-
    flict with approved State WQM plans,  the permit system
    provides an essential tool for implementation of  plans.

        Many first-round municipal permits expire on  July 1,
    1977, well before the scheduled completion of most plans.
    Thus, special efforts may be  needed to coordinate  some
    second-round municipal permits with ongoing planning.
    This coordination is most important where construction is
    scheduled at a facility within the life of its second-
    round permit. ,
                  3-28

-------
    In each State, the NPDES agency is responsible for
drafting and issuing enforceable NPDES permits.  The NPDES
agency should inform the State and areawide planning
agencies of proposed terms of permits affecting dischargers
in their planning areas.  (It is the responsibility of each
planning agency to inform the NPDES agency of conflicts
between draft permits and ongoing planning.)  The NPDES
agency should proceed to draft and issue permits prior to
approval of WQM pains.  Where early outputs are available
from the State or areawide planning agencies, the NPDES
agency should consider them during the drafting of permits,
especially with respect to municipal facilities anticipating
construction during the life of the permit.

    The State planning agency is responsible for developing
waste load allocations for all water quality limited seg-
ments.  (The State may delegate this responsibility to
local agencies.)  The State planning agency should also
review draft permits for dischargers in the State and in-
form the NPDES agency of any conflicts with ongoing planning,

    For all dischargers within the boundaries of its area,
designated areawide planning agencies are to:

    .  review all permits drafted by the NPDES agency to
       check for consistency with ongoing planning.  This
       review may take place prior to or concurrent with
       the normal public participation procedures on per-
       mit conditions;

    .  inform the NPDES agency if any draft permit is not
       consistent with approved plans, approved parts of
       plans, or likely conclusions of the planning process.

    In addition, all areawide planning agencies whose areas
include water quality limited segments (or parts of water
quality limited segments) for which waste load allocations
already exist should review the waste load allocations, and
transmit the findings of the review to the State and EPA.

    In all areawide planning areas, the designated planning
agencies may also undertake any of the following tasks, but
only if the State specifically delegates the responsibility
for these tasks to the areawide agency:

    .  revision of existing waste load allocations;

    .  preparation of waste load allocations where they are
       needed but do not already exist.
               3-29

-------
(b) Coordination with Facilities Planning
    (40 CFR Part 35. SubparTTT

    Facilities planning involves detailed planning directly
related to the federally assisted construction of municipal
waste treatment facilities.   Such plans provide for cost
effective and environmentally acceptable municipal waste
treatment or control by determining the best practicable
alternative waste management system over time, its geo-
graphic coverage, its service of other area sources,
including industrial sources, and the nature and amount of
the planned discharge (load reduction achieved).

    The State WQM Plan will  provide the following input
to further facilities planning (also refer to element
(h) in Ch. 3.6):

    .  service areas
    .  capacities and population served
    .  load reduction or level of treatment
    .  type of treatment
    .  preliminary cost estimates

    Where detailed facilities planning reveals that infor-
mation from the State WQM Plan does not accurately
reflect particular conditions in an area, the State
should be consulted so that these aspects of the
State WQM Plan can be revised where necessary.

(c) Relation to 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management
    in Designated Areas'

    The division of planning responsibility between the
State and designated 208 planning agencies is discussed in
Ch. 2.  The State has ultimate responsibility for developing
and approving waste load allocations but may delegate the
analytic work to other agencies including designated 208
agencies.  Where the 208 designated agencies are revising
or developing waste load allocations, the
State must   ensure that these allocations are consistent
with the total maximum loads for upstream and downstream
segments in the basin in which designated 208 planning is
undertaken.
              3-30

-------
    (d) Nonpoint Sources

        In allocating pollutant loads among point suurces, the
    pollutant contribution from nonpoint sources should be
    considered to assure that the combined total wiil  not ex-
    ceed applicable water quality standards.  Such contribution
    should be separately entered in the load allocation display.
    The long term point source load allocations may depend upon
    the abatement and control alternatives for  -nonpoint sources.

    (e) Accomodation of Future Growth

        Growth trend information compiled for the segment should
    be considered and a determination made as to the load allot-
    ments, if any. to be reserved for future dischcuges.   The
    allotment  must  be consistent with continuing Achievement
    of standards and prevention of significant  water nualit.y
    degradation (see Ch. 5).  The growth allotment  should be
    separately displayed in the reported load el !o-  -t ir?i.

    (f) Upstream Contribution

        The amount of pollutants entering the segment,  fro"i
    upstream should be considered when determining whether the
    total  of proposed individual point and nonpoin' allowances
    exceeds the allowable maximum (see element  (f)).  ^or
    purposes of notation and calculation, the estimate of this
    contribution necessarily involves coordination with planning
    for the upstream segment.  The method of coordination, level
    of certainty regarding the estimated future loaH,  and the
    time span covered is a matter of planning judgen^nt.

(2) Load Allocation Techniques

    Load .allocation involves planning for many  uncertainties such
as uncertainty with respect to growth projections; a lack of
knowledge of cause-effect relationships between effluents and
water quality; pending decisions with respect to the construction
of reservoirs, withdrawals, and other developments which  could
significantly affect the assignment of effluent limitations;
and uncertainty as to the quality of the data being employed.
Recommendations on how to deal with these problem   
-------
segments higher levels of technology could be required to
achieve standards.  Since the rate of growth of waste loads
is controlled by local decisions with respect to annexa-
tion, industrial expansion, sewer connection permits, etc.,
the plan's load projections and allocations must be reviewed
with the responsible municipalities and industries.  The
regulatory program (see Ch. 9) should provide regulation over
new waste discharging facilities consistent with the State
WQM Plan.

(b) Lack of Cause-Effect Knowledge

    Uncertainty due to a lack of knowledge of the cause-effect
relationships among waste loads and water quality must be
taken into account in the waste load allocation process to
provide a basis for specifying tolerance levels for prediction
errors.  Where the cost of errors is relatively small,
factors of safety should be included; where the cost of
errors is large, an ongoing monitoring program should be
developed to improve the quality of the data used in the
waste load allocation process.

(c) Pending Development

    Where there is substantial uncertainty with respect to
pending development decisions, allocations should be made
under both the assumption that development will not occur
and that the development will occur.  Water quality impli-
cations of the proposed development should then be brought
to the attention of the decision-makers concerned with the
project.

(d) Uncertainty as to the Quality of Data

    High levels of confidence in the data should exist where
the costs of possible error are large.  Lower confidence
levels can be tolerated where the resulting costs of error are
small.  Additional confirmation of data should be sought
where the costs of possible error are large.

    Because of the variations that will exist in the quality
of information that can be used in load allocation, there
are no generally applicable load allocation decision rules
that should be applied in all situations.  In general though,
anticipated violations result from one of three situations:
pollution primarily from nonpoint sources; pollution primarily
from treatment plant effluents after the achievement of base
level limitations; or pollution from treatment plant effluents
               3-32

-------
and nonpoint sources of comparable magnitude.   Allocations
under each of these conditions could be as  follows:

    .  Dominant Nonpoint

       Where water quality standards would  not be achieved
    after the application of Best Available Technology (BAT)
    by industrial  and BPWTT by municipal  point sources,  and
    the remaining  violations are predominantly caused  by
    nonpoint sources, loads should be allocated to point
    sources according to BAT/BPWTT treatment limitations,
    since water quality would not be significantly im-
    proved through the application of higher effluent
    limitations.  Overall levels of nonpoint source load
    reduction needed to meet standards should be established
    (e.g., the gross allotment for nonpoint sources  referred
    to in element  (f)).  This allotment should be used in
    determining Best Management Practices for nonpoint
    sources (see Ch. 7).

    .  Dominant Point

       Where pollution from point sources after the appli-
    cation of BAT/BPWTT is the dominant cause of anticipated
    violations, loads should be allocated to achieve water
    quality standards in a cost-effective manner, including
    allocations requiring higher levels of  treatment or
    control.  In segments where previously  developed plans
    are available  and up to date, these plans may be suffi-
    cient to assign waste loads to individual  sources.  In
    other segments, evaluation of alternative load allocation
    strategies is  necessary to determine  the most cost-
    effective strategy for achieving water  quality standards.
    Waste loads should be allocated consistent with  the
    preferred strategy.

    .  Comparable  Point and Nonpoint

       Where pollution from nonpoint sources after the appli-
    cation of BAT/BPWTT-treatment, and pollution from  nonpoint
    sources are of comparable magnitude,  the tradeoffs between
    overall point  and nonpoint load reduction should be  con-
    sidered, and a gross allotment for nonpoint sources
    established, as discussed in regard to  dominant  nonpoint
    areas.

       Evaluation  of tradeoffs between point and nonpoint source
    abatement should be carried out only  at the level  of
    detail required to execute the waste  load allocation process.
               3-33

-------
    The evaluation should not reach the level  of engineering
    design, but should consider the nonstructural  alternatives

       Whatever the cause of water quality problems,  the
    following assumptions on low flow and wet  weather flow
    conditions may need to be employed in allocating  to
    point sources and establishing the gross allotment for
    nonpoint sources.

(e) Low Flow Conditions

    Continuous or seasonal point source allocations  should
generally be made for dry weather low flow conditions, or
whatever other critical design condition is chosen for es-
tablishing maximum allowable daily loads.

    Intermittent point sources and nonpoint sources  that are
rainfall related may not be present under low  flow conditions.
Therefore, the load allocation to point sources  under low
flow conditions will be similar to the situation described as
dominant point source above.

    Nevertheless, at low flow there may be nonpoint  source
problems due to in-stream deposits of material accumulated
from point and nonpoint sources.  To the extent  that  the low
flow water quality problem is caused by the deposit  of mater-
ial under high flow conditions from nonpoint sources, the
reduction of this load will help alleviate the problem.  If
this is the case, the point source load allocation options
may be similar to those described as comparable  point and
nonpoint above.

(f) Wet Weather Flow Conditions

    Continuous or seasonal point source allocations  should
first be established for low flow conditions.  These  allo-
cations should be maintained for high flow conditions unless
it is possible to write permit conditions that would  allow
waste loads to vary depending on stream flow.

    Assuming a constant load allocation for point sources
(based on low flow), the waste load reduction  needed  to
meet standards under wet weather flow conditions will have
to be borne by abatement of nonpoint sources.   In other words,
some of the remaining portion of the maximum daily load for
the stream, after imposition of waste load allocation for
point sources (based on low flow) will be equivalent  to the
gross allotment for nonpoint sources.  Further guidance on
how to determine nonpoint source abatement approaches to meet
this gross allotment is provided in Ch. 7.
              3-34

-------
      (3) Relationship Between Individual  Load Allocations and
          Maximum Daily Load to the Segments

          Because a segment may encompass  considerable stream length,
      it is possible that there will be variation in the assimilative
      capacity, especially for biodegradable pollutants, depending on
      the location of the discharge points along the segment.  In such
      cases, mathematical models should be used to determine whether
      the pollutant loadings are compatible with meeting water quality
      standards at each discharge point.  In some cases, the sum of the
      individual discharges may exceed the maximum allowable daily load.
      If this proves to be the case, the maximum allowable load should
      be revised to account for the configuration of discharges that
      may be proposed.

      (4) Consistency of Growth Assumptions; Implementation of
          Allowance for GrowtF

          The growth allowance used in the waste load allocation pro-
      cess  must  be compatible with the growth projections made under
      element (c).  A regulatory program (element (n) below) should
      be developed to assure that any new  discharges introduced into
      the area are within the allowance for growth of wasteloads.

      (5) Relationship with Permits

          After wasteload allocations have been established, the target
      abatement dates and schedules of compliance to include as terms
      in permits should be described under element (m) below.

2) Test Sets of Wasteload Reductions to Determine Consistency

   The analytic model discussed earlier in this chapter should be used
to determine whether wasteload allocations for continuous point sources
enable meeting standards.  The choice of a tolerance level  and the
rationale for that choice should be explicity stated.

   It is not necessary and probably not feasible to attempt to model
the receiving water impact of the load reductions assigned to inter-
mittent point sources and nonpoint sources, as this may require highly
sophisticated analytic modeling and more extensive data requirements
than can be met during the planning period.  It is only necessary to
determine whether the predicted load reductions for intermittent point
and nonpoint sources enable meeting the single gross allotment or
target abatement level for these sources.

   Because some proportion of wasteloads may be reserved to allow for
future growth in the area, it is important that the wasteload alloca-
tion process be undertaken in close coordination with agencies possess-
ing land use planning and control  authority.  Management of new waste-
load discharges in the area should be carried out through the regulatory
program for implementing the plan (see Ch. 9).
                         3-35

-------
D. Choose Approach (and Level  of Detail)  for Relating  Water Quality
   Constraints to Abatement Measures*

   After the water quality analysis  has  been conducted,  it  should be  possible
to specify the categories of sources  for which  detailed  control plans  are
needed.  As explained in Chapter 3.3.C,  where it  is  not  clearly established
that particular problems exist or that implementation  measures can be  under-
taken in the next five years,  the implementation  program for these sources
(elements (h)-(o)) can be developed  in the  form of an  assessment of control
needs.  At this point in the planning process,  decisions can be made  con-
cerning the level of detail in which  abatement  measures  can be made concerning
the level of detail in which abatement measures will be  developed.

   Maximum allowable daily loads (MAL) for  each pollutant parameter and  each
segment provide a total load constraint  which can be met through many
possible combinations of load  reductions  from different  sources.  There  are
basically two approaches that  can be  used to match up  the different possible
load reduction sets to the maximum allowable daily load:

   1. Area Approach: Compare the alternative abatement measures for the
   entire area in order to meet the  MAL  for each  parameter  in the most
   cost-effective manner.

      The area approach may enable an optimal selection  of  controls.   This
   approach is appropriate where many sources are suspected of contributing
   to a particular pollutant parameter.   Urban  concentrations are likely to
   present complex sources of pollution.  To assign  a  certain load reduction
   at low flow to municipal sources  and  another to industrial sources  without
   considering the most cost-effective load reduction  could lead to an uneco-
   nomic solution.  In fact, the point source load allocation program normally
   does consider alternative reductions  by  different point  sources.   However,
   the area approach could also be applied  to nonpoint sources.  For  example,
   load reductions assigned at wet weather  flows  to  stormwater and rural
   runoff could be varied in order to choose the  least cost solution  for
   reducing the existing sediment problem.   The main shortcoming of this
   approach is that it requires a great  deal of information on the relative
   loading from different sources to be  available before load reductions can
   be assigned to the sources.

   2. Category Approach: Allocate a  proportion  of the  MAL for each parameter
   to the various source categories.   Within a  particular source category,
   the most cost-effective combination of controls would be chosen.

      The category by category approach  may be  more  appropriate where particu-
   lar categories of sources contribute  to  violations  of given parameters.
   The reduction of the loading of the violated parameter can readily be
   assigned to a few categories of sources  according to  simple allocation
   techniques.  More guidance on these techniques is presented in  Ch.  7.
                                 3-36

-------
a. Establish Categories

   In order to isolate particular pollution problems and concentrate
planning efforts on these problems, it is important to define  the
spectrum of possible problems of which a particular category of sources
is a part.  A classification system should therefore be developed to
cover all pollution problems.  In the case of municipal and industrial
sources, the classification is straightforward.   For runoff related
sources, a system of classification should be developed based  on the
factors that influence pollution generation—both natural  features and
man-made activities.  Classification of nonpoint sources is further
discussed in Ch. 7.

b. Allocate Waste Load Reductions from Step C.6. to Each
   Category of Sources'

   A number of decision rules can be employed in allocating waste load
reductions to particular categories and subcategories of pollution
sources:

   1) Proportional  Reduction

      This approach would involve dividing the allowable load  among  all
   pollution-generating categories in proportion to the existing extent
   of activity of the various categories.  For example, the nonpoint
   source allotment would be allocated in proportion to area occupied
   by nonpoint source activities.  The point source allotment  would  be
   allocated in proportion to existing rate of pollutant loading,
   existing dollar production level, or some other equitable basis.
   The advantage of this approach is the stress  on equity; the disad-
   vantage is that it requires extensive information and relies on an
   arbitrary basis for allocation.

   2) Equal Relative Reduction Approach

      This approach involves determining a relative reduction  from
   existing instream pollutant loads by all sources to meet the maximum
   allowable load for a particular parameter.   This relative reduction
   level would be applied in relation to the existing rate of  pollution
   generation by each category in order to determine load  reductions
   for the category.  The advantage of this approach is that it is simple
   and equitable.  The disadvantage is that it may not be  very efficient
   for all polluters to reduce their pollution loading by  the  same pro-
   portion.

   3) Best Technology Approach

      This approach involves selecting the degree of reduction for each
                            3-37

-------
         category of sources  based  on  the  abatement  efficiency of  the  tech-
         nology for each category.   If reduction  levels  for  all  sources were
         determined by this approach,  they might  not correspond  to the max-
         imum daily load for  a  segment.  Upward or downward  revisions  in
         abatement requirements would  need to  be  made  after  assessing  the
         impact of applying the best technologies for  each category of sources.
         The advantage of this  approach  is that it allocates the burden of
         cleanup to those categories or  sources having the technical capa-
         bility to assume the burden.   The disadvantage  is that  the best
         technology does not  necessarily correspond  to the pollution abatement
         needs of particular  areas.

         More complex decision  rules combining proportional  reduction  with
      specified base levels of  reduction for each category could be formulated.
      The principal problem in  allocating  waste load reductions, however, is
      the uncertainty inherent  in predicting the  magnitude of pollution prob-
      lems with or without control.  Methods for  predicting  pollution  loading
      in runoff are discussed in Ch. 7.  The advantages  and  limitations of
      these methods should be considered in choosing decision rules for allo-
      cating load reduction to  various categories of pollutant sources.

         Once decision rules  have been chosen  for allocating load  reduction,
      reduction levels should be assigned  for  each parameter to  each category
      (and sub-category) of sources.  It is also  possible that the choice
      will be made to allocate  load  reductions on a  category by  category basis
      only to sources occuring  under wet weather  flow  conditions.   This could
      be accomplished by making a  "gross allotment"  of the MAL between point
      and nonpoint sources and  following the area approach to allocate loads
      to individual point sources and  the  category by  category approach to
      allocate load reduction to nonpoint  sources.

E.  Develop Abatement Plans

   1.  Area Approach

      a. Determine Alternative  Area  Sub-Plans  to  Meet  Eligible Load
         Reductions/Effluent  Limitations

         Chapters 6-8 provide a framework  for  developing pollution control
      options for point and nonpoint sources.  The alternatives  that are
      presented as the result of detailed  planning for point and nonpoint
      sources-are referred to as subplans. These subplans encompass elements
      (h)-(m) of the required plan  elements.   These  elements are described
      on pages 3-56 ff.

         In order to develop  subplans, it  is helpful to  examine  the patterns
      of existing and projected wasteloads by  display  on land use  maps.
      Alternatives for point  and nonpoint  source  control, and means to imple-
      ment these controls, may  be developed through  an examination of  alterna-
      tive land use and land  management practices.   (See Ch. 6.)  It should
      be emphasized that the  detailed  land use-water quality analysis  described
      in Ch. 6 is an optional approach for development of abatement measures.


                                  3-38

-------
   Subplans may be broken into three major types according to the
category of sources and design conditions to which they apply:

   1) Continuous or Seasonal Point Source Subplans

      Continuous point sources are municipal treatment works and indus-
   trial point sources.  Some industrial point sources may discharge on
   a seasonal basis.  Detail on preparing this subplan is provided in Ch. 8,

   2) Intermittent Point Source Subplans

      Intermittent point sources are wet weather related point sources
   such as combined sewer overflows.  Detail on preparing this subplan is
   provided in Chapters 6, 7 and 8.

   3) Nonpoint Source Subplans

      Nonpoint sources are primarily wet weather related.  Detail on
   •preparing this subplan is provided in Ch. 7.

   For purposes of comparing alternatives, each subplan should furnish
information on the following (this information encompasses some of the
required information for each plan element):

   .  Wasteload characteristics of each alternative expressed in
      appropriate units;

   .  Total cost of each alternative expressed as its present value
      or average equivalent value of capital and operating costs for
      the overall alternative and subsystem components;

   .  Information on the reliability of each alternative and subsystem
      included in each alternative;

   .  Significant environmental  effects of each alternative consistent
      with NEPA procedures, including a specific statement on future
      development impact;

   .  Contribution of each alternative to other water-related goals of
      the planning area.

b. Screen Subplans

   Control options under each subplan are numerous.   Thus, the number of
possible subplans may be so great as to impede consideration of logical
alternatives.   Since the only subplans that are viable are those which
the management agency(s) can implement, it is important at this stage to
integrate the results of management planning with those of technical
planning.
                            3-39

-------
   c. Combine Subplans into Alternative Plans

      At this step, viable subplans  should be  combined  into alternative
   technical plans for final  evaluation and selection.   This is  not
   meant to preclude reconsidering options previously screened out,
   but merely to provide a convenient form of  organizing a  vast  number of
   potential control alternatives  into a reasonable  number  to evaluate.

2. Category Approach

   a. Develop Alternative Controls for Each Category of Sources
      to Meet Load Reductions/Effluent Limitations

      For each category to which a load reduction  has been  assigned,
   alternative control plans  should  be prepared.   These control  plans
   should provide the specific information required  under elements
   (h)-(l), which are further discussed below.   For  purposes of  com-
   paring alternatives, such  control  plans should  furnish information  on
   the following (this information encompasses  some  of  the  required
   information for each plan  element):

      .   Waste!oad characteristics of each alternative  expressed in
         appropriate units;

      .   Total cost of each alternative expressed  as its present value
         or average equivalent value of capital  and  operating costs for
         the overall alternative and subsystem components;

      .   Information on the reliability of each  alternative and  subsystem
         included in each alternative;

      .   Significant environmental effects of  each alternative consistent
         with NEPA procedures, including a specific  statement on future
         development impact;

      .   Contribution of each alternative to other water-related goals
         of the planning area.

      These subplans encompass elements (h)-(m)  of the  required  plan
   elements.  Guidance on these elements is provided below.  It  should
   be noted, however, that requirements of the regulation must be met
   under both the area approach as well as the category approach.

      1) Municipal Facilities Needs  -- Element (h)

         Guidance is provided in Chapter 8.
                               3-40

-------
2) Industrial  Facilities Needs  -- Element (i)

   Guidance is provided in Chapter 8.

3) Nonpoint Source Control Needs  -- Element (j)

   a) Summary  of Needs

      S131.11(j)(l) calls for a  summary of the nonpoint  source  control
   needs of a  State.   This statement of needs should  be  broken  down  by
   type of nonpoint source problem (the categories  established  under
   element (d)) and planning area or subarea as  delineated  in element
   (a).  This  summary should be  based  on the analyses and evaluations
   discussed in (b) and (c) below.

   b) Nonpoint Source Analysis  and Evaluation

      For each nonpoint source  category, in each planning area,
   there should be an analysis  of the  alternative control measures
   from which  Best Management Practices could be chosen.  A procedure
   for choosing Best  Management  Practices is presented in detail  in
   Ch. 7.  The procedure calls  for a distinction between new and
   existing nonpoint  sources in  each category.   The distinction
   between "existing" and "new"  nonpoint source  activities  will be
   left to the discretion of the  State.  General  guidance on how  this
   distinction could  be made in  practical terms  is  presented in
   Ch. 7.  The rationale for this distinction is that it is prac-
   tically impossible to anticipate the magnitude of  future nonpoint
   sources. Thus, controls for  existing nonpoint sources should  be
   related to  a gross allotment  for such sources, whereas controls
   for new nonpoint sources should  be  set at a level  which  would
   protect water quality from further  deterioration.   The analyses
   of nonpoint source controls should  present alternatives  for  both
   new and existing sources.  For each alternative, the  information
   listed in the regulation and criteria for meeting  the regulation
   should be presented.   Guidance on developing  regulatory  programs
   and choosing implementing agencies  is presented  in Ch. 9.

   c) Nonpoint Source Categories

      The nonpoint source categories established in the Act and the
   Part 131 regulations  should be used as a basis for establishing
   the categories  of  nonpoint sources  for which  planning will be
   undertaken.  However, since Section 201(c) provides a general man-
   date for 208 planning to "provide control and treatment  of all
   point and nonpoint source of pollution,  including  in place or
   accumulated pollution sources,"  these categories should  not  be
                         3-41

-------
   interpreted U c:1,; ri.jp ,;,ny nonpoint source problems.   If  needed
   to carry out. the ;;..mnd(e of Section 201 (c),  additional  categories
   or subcateyones  - nonpoint sources should  be  established  for
   purposes cf o latin ;,••<,,  Chapter 7 provides guidance  on  how to
   establish n.onnoir-r sour,:^ categories for purposes of planning.

4 ) Residual _Was f ~t-_ GJ. .• •'.-,, "ic^s ; Land Disposal  Needs -- Element (k)

   a ) Disposa 1 or I J ': ? H z at i pn_ of Residuals from Treatment Processes

      The municipal and industrial needs assessment should include a
   preliminary ioeru  i M. . jtion of the residual waste disposal  or util-
   ization option t"(  . euc!i facility.  Further guidance is contained
   in Chs. 7 and 3.

   b) Land Disposal ^. ^'^jj^yiL^^

      The nonpoint source planning process should  include establish-
   ment of Best Management Practices for land disposal of pollutants,
   for both existina  and new sources in this category.  Refer to
   Ch. 7 for further  guidance.
^ ) Urban and J mh;o i - ; •• i ;> I S t o rmwater Systems Needs  --  Element  (1)

   a) Analysi s or Kx", -ting Problems

      The general nrorrdure  for nonpoint source planning is  presented
   in Ch; 7.

   b) Analysis of Nev>  stormwater Systems

      Assuming tna!  modification of the existing  drainage pattern is
   categorized as a "r.ew" nonpoint source category  by  the State, the
   procedure for establishing Best Management  Practices  for  new  non-
   point sources Crf-, .  7' should be followed.   Guidance on regulatory
   programs for in- •?! .'-men ting controls  is found in Ch.  9.

   c)
      The cost, e-t -iino-'a1 --Iiould be of a  generalized  nature since
   the asses smp-s-'t nf •. i-.o rmwater needs and  performance  criteria for
   new systems will ;,ot include detailed engineering designs.   The
   cost estimates !,et-J only be detailed  enough  to  enable decisions
   concerning cost effectiveness of  various  alternatives.   See
   Ch. 11 for fijM>er information on stormwater abatement  cost
   estimates.
                             3-42

-------
6)  Target Abatement Dates (Schedules of Compliance ~-  Element  (m)

    a)  Eff1 uent Limi tations

        Effluent limitations must be established for
    significant point sources in any water quality segment.
    Limitations must be set forth for every pollutant discharged
    by the source.   Effluent limitations established in any
    current permit  must be at least as stringent as necessary
    to meet the requirements of the Act and applicable  regula-
    tions, and, for parameters for which load allocations  are
    required, the load allocations established for each source.

       The Administrator is publishing effluent guidelines defining
    Best Practicable Waste Treatment Technology for municipal facil-
    ities and Best  Available Technology for various classes  and
    categories of industrial point sources.   Copies of  the guide-
    lines and information regarding them may be obtained from
    the Regional Administrator.  Stricter than base level  limita-
    tions must be developed where the base level  restrictions
    would not result in compliance with the source's load
    allocation and  with water quality standards,

   b) Target Abatement Dates

      Target abatement dates or schedules of compliance must be
   determined  for point sources which are not currently in compliance
   with  the effluent  limitations.   If the State is participating in
   the NPDES,  target  dates  for the  processing of permits for any
   source which will  not  have  been  processed at the time of the
   State WQM Plan completion must also  be set forth.

      Major milestone dates  from  the schedules of compliance es-
   tablished by current NPDES  permits must be included in the
   segment analysis.  Target abatement  dates must be developed for
   all other significant  sources  and for any source having a permit
   with  an incomplete schedule.

      Each schedule of compliance or target abatement date should
   reflect stringent  performance  goals  to assure implementation of
   the plan's  required effluent limitations in the shortest prac-
   ticable time.  However,  all dates established by the plan must
   be realistic and feasible.  The  schedules or targets should
   provide for timely implementation of statutory goals.
                          3-43

-------
3.7 Management Planning

    A.  Purpose

       The key implementation and enforcement  provisions  for  State  WQM Plans  are
    delineated in Section 208(b)(2)(c)  and  (c)(2)  of the  Act.   The  Act requires
    that authority to carry out the above provisions be vested  in a designated
    agency or agencies within a planning area.   The  purpose of  management plan-
    ning is to select a management agency or agencies and to  develop appropriate
    institutional arrangements through  which the plan can be  implemented.
    Institutional arrangements are the  formal  structure of affected state
    and local units of government for planning  and implementing a water
    quality management plan.

       The Act clearly specifies the responsibilities and functions of the
    management agency(s).  The criteria that should  be used to  determine  whether
    the management agency(s)  can properly carry out  these responsibilities are:

       .  adequate legal  authority
       .  adequate financial  capacity

       The Act does not,  however, stipulate  what institutional  arrangements
    should be utilized to enable plan implementation. Criteria for evaluating
    the adequacy of the management agency(s) and institutional  arrangements
    should be:

       .  Practicability — To what extent do  institutional arrangements  rely
       on existing water quality management  agencies? Are the  institutional
       arrangements politically feasible?

       .  Managerial  Capacity -- To what extent do institutional arrangements
       provide for program oversight including  procedures for resolving con-
       flicts and cooperating with other areawide  planning activities?

       .  Public Accountability -- To what extent  do institutional  arrangements
       provide for a decision-making process accountable  to the area electorate?

       1. Functions of Management Agencies

          To ensure plan  implementation, the management agency(s) and the
       supporting institutional arrangements need  to carry out  the  following
       functions:
                                      3-44

-------
   a. General Management Program

      One of the most important functions of management agency(s)  is
   to provide general direction for the implementation of the plan.
   The management responsibilities involved in directing plan imple-
   mentation should include:

      .   program supervision and coordination, e.g., ensuring that the
      program is being implemented, that the program is being coordin-
      ated with other programs in the area, and that the performance of
      the program is being continually assessed;

      .   continuous planning, e.g., updating the plan and implementation
      mechanisms as required by changing conditions;

      .   fiscal management, e.g., assuring that adequate resources are
      provided to implement the regulatory and waste management programs as
      well as to finance the administration and continuous planning func-
      tions of the management agency(s).

   b. Regulatory Program

      Authority to carry out the regulatory program mandated in Section
   208(b)(2)(C) is required.  In addition to authority to regulate
   existing and new pollution sources, administrative .procedures and
   agencies responsible for implementing the regulation need to be
   specified.  The regulatory program Will be one of the vehicles for enforc-
   ing the abatement measures that have been developed through the tech-
   nical planning process.  In addition to direct regulation, appropriate
   tax policies should be developed to complement the regulatory program.

   c. Haste Treatment Program

      The legal authority and financial capacity needed for operating,
   maintaining, and constructing waste treatment works and otherwise
   carrying out a plan is described in Section 208(c)(2) of the Act. A
   waste treatment program includes all the capital  construction res-
   ponsibilities to carry out a plan, such as publicly owned treatment
   works as well as all other public sector programs for abating pollution
   which may include residual waste management, stormwater management,
   and nonpoint source management.

2. Management Agency(s) and Institutional Arrangements Capable of
   Implementing the Plan

   The great variety of local institutions, practices, and experience
dictates that a pragmatic strategy be followed in selecting management
agency(s) and formulating institutional arrangements.  The arrangements
may be comprised of one or more agencies, which may be existing or
                              3-45

-------
   newly created and local,  regional,  or statewide in jurisdiction,  and
   may also rely on intergovernmental  agreements.

      Although care should be taken to ensure that the institutional
   arrangements fit the local situation, excessive fragmentation of  auth-
   ority and responsibility should be  avoided.  The greater the number of
   agencies involved in implementing the plan, the greater the need  to
   coordinate between the agencies. The complexity of institutional
   arrangement should not prevent a clear delineation of the decision-making
   process used to implement the plan.  In particular, there should  be an
   explicit arrangement for ensuring overall  supervision and enforcement of
   the management plan.

B. Define Characteristics of the Regulatory Program and Management Agency(s)
   and Institutional Arrangements to Meet Requirements of the Act

   The first step in management planning should be to determine the  techni-
cal solutions to water quality problems that have  been proposed for  the
area.  For each technical solution, there should be adequate authority to
implement the solution (through regulatory and waste treatment programs),
proper financial arrangements and agency(s) responsible for implementing
the solution.  A description should be made of the needed authority, finan-
cial, and management arrangements as required by the Act and Part 131
regulations, in terms of the particular technical  solutions proposed for
the planning area.  This description should be based on meeting the  pro-
visions of elements (n) and (o) of 40  CFR, Part 131.11 (see pages 3-56 ff).
The description may be arranged under  the following headings:

   -  Legal authority and financial capacity for:

      .  General management program;
      .  Regulatory program;
      .  Waste treatment program.

   -  Management structure and institutional  arrangements to carry out
   functions.

   1. Regulatory Program-- Element (n)

      Chapter 9 provides overall guidance on how to develop regulatory
   programs -- from inventorying existing regulations to developing  new
   regulatory proposals.  The following guidance pertains to various pro-
   visions of the regulation:
                                  3-46

-------
a. Establishment of Areawlde Regulatory Proqr.iins  (Existing Sources)

   In developing regulatory programs, it is  impprUn':  to ensure  an
areawide approach; that is, similar problems shuul'i  have similar
solutions.  This necessitates coordination between Dfanning done for
similar problems.

   Although this does not necessarily require ?, <.  o;nmon management
agency for each problem, there should also be uv/raination between
management agencies that are implementing confr-ois for similar
problems.

   To document the need for the regulatory control"  chat are chosen,
the State Water Quality Management Plan should re!ate  the maximum
allowable pollutant load identified in element (f  < t/j  the regulatory
controls that are chosen to reduce existing  levfeH of  pollutant  load-
ing to a level consistent with the water quality  :;o^is,  Regulatory
controls should be established for each category  nf  -ources.

   The following characteristics of regulatory pr;-<oriric!s, appeals.)

b. Pretreatment Regulatory Program

   Section 307 of the Act concerns pretreatmer.t ,  d-nn'rements governing
discharge of pollutants into publicly owned \n:.("*'"  :.!.»atment works.
Regulations for Section 307 should be consults '<-.\ developing local
pretreatment regulatory programs.
                            3-47

-------
      In addition  to the  national  pretreatment  requirements, an analysis
   should be conducted of acceptable  levels  of  influent quality for  dis-
   charqes into the particular treatment  plants in  the planning area.   It
   is particularly important to consider  what tolerance the treatment
   processes have  for toxic  waste  loads.   It is also  important to  con-
   sider the quality of the  sludge from the  treatment plants, since
   the presence of toxics and heavy metals may  restrict beneficial uses
   of sludge.

      The characteristics of a regulatory program needed  to meet the
   requirements are discussed further in  Ch. 9.

   c. Establishment of Areawide Regulatory Program  (New Sources)

      The choice of regulatory controls for  new pollutant sources  should
   be based on the abatement needs for point sources  needed to meet  rele-
   vant waste load limitations, and the degree  of abatement of nonpoint
   sources needed  to protect water quality from further deterioration.
   The procedure for selecting nonpoint source  controls for new sources
   is discussed in Ch. 7.

      The characteristics of a regulatory program needed  to meet the
   requirements are discussed'further in  Ch. 9.

   d. Choice of Best Management Practices

      The documentation of the degree of  abatement  needed for controls  for
   existing point  and nonpoint sources is discussed above.  In addition to
   documenting that Best  Management Practices have  been chosen, the  plan
   should describe the relationship between  Best Management Practices for
   different categories of sources and the State's  ongoing monitoring pro-
   gram.  The monitoring  program should provide information that can be
   used to evaluate the effectiveness of  the BMP's  adopted by the  State.

2. Implementing and Operating Agencies -- Element  (o)

   a. Agencies Responsible for Carrying out  Plan Elements

      The plans will generally include the following  ways of  imple-
   menting pollution abatement:

      .  Waste treatment  plant construction;
      .  Municipal and industrial  effluent limitations, pretreatment
         standards, and sewer use regulations;
      .  Best Management  Practices for new and  existing nonpoint sources,
         urban runoff, residual wastes, and  land disposal.
                               3-48

-------
         Each of these means will  require designating a management agency or
      agencies to implement the abatement requirements.  In general, munici-
      pal and special sewerage districts should be chosen to implement the
      facilities operation and construction component of the plan; the State
      should assure that municipal  and industrial  effluent limitations are
      followed; the jurisdictions  and agency(s) responsible for facilities
      operation and construction should develop and enforce pretreatment
      regulation and regulation of sewer hook-ups; a combination of local,
      county, State, and special purposes agencies should be responsible
      for developing and implementing regulations  requiring BMPs.

         The institutional structure and arrangements for supervising and
      carrying out the plan are further discussed  in Ch. 9.

      b. Authority and Financial Capacity of Management Agencies

         Chapters 9 and 10 provides more detailed  discussion of legal auth-
      ority and financial capacity of management agencies.

C. Conduct Management Analysis

   The next step in the management planning process should be an analysis of
the area's experience in water quality management.  The purpose of this
analysis will be to evaluate the capability within the area to meet the man-
agement requirements of Section 208 and to develop an understanding of what
is needed to satisfy these requirements.  Some of  the analysis will have
been accomplished in the designation and grant application stages.  During
the planning process, this preliminary assessment  should be reviewed and,
where necessary, expanded to assure its accuracy and thoroughness.  The
following analyses should be provided:

   1. An assessment of the specific legal authority required under Subsection
   208(c)(2) and 208(b)(2)(C) to carry out the regulatory and waste manage-
   ment programs and an approach for acquiring such authority.  The approach
   should delineate what enabling  or supplemental  legislation would be
   necessary, the type of contractual agreements that might be employed, and
   the possibility for adapting to existing laws.   In instances where exist-
   ing laws might be broadly interpreted as furnishing the required authority,
   but where such interpretation may be subject to dispute, it would be best
   to seek specific statutory sanction.

   2. An evaluation of existing financial arrangements to determine what
   changes will be necessary to provide affected agencies with the capacity
   to meet financial needs and obligations for carrying out general manage-
   ment responsibilities, the regulatory program,  and waste management
   program.
                                  3-49

-------
       3. An assessment of the potential  of existing  institutions  in  the  area
       to perform the required functions.   An  overall  assessment should be
       made of the area's  potential  for  regional  water quality  management.
       This evaluation should seek to assess the  effectiveness  of  regional
       management to date  and the strength  of  the area's  traditions and commit-
       ment to regional approaches.   The  evaluation should  incorporate an
       appraisal  of the relationships between  federally funded  regional planning
       authorities and regional  or local  water quality management  agencies  such
       as transportation,  land disposal  of  wastes, land use planning, and water
       supply where such agency activities  affect water quality.   The purpose of
       the evaluation is to, help ensure  that implementation plans  are constructed
       on a realistic foundation which reflects the area's  experience in  region-
       alized management.

    D.  Develop Alternative Management Plans

       Upon completion of  the management  analysis, alternative  management plans
    reflecting the results of this analysis should be  developed.   These manage-
    ment plans should meet the provisions for  elements (n)  and  (o) of 40  CFR
    Part 131.  In most cases, only a limited number" of alternatives will  be
    appropriate.   Close coordination with the  technical planning component  of
    the planning  process will be necessary  throughout  this  stage to ensure
    that the management alternatives developed are consistent with alternative
    technical plans.  As an initial  step  in the formulation of  management alter-
    natives, the  broad options available  should be reviewed and assessed.  Care-
    ful consideration should be given to  the advantages and constraints of  these
    options in relation to the designated areas.   Once developed,  the implemen-
    tation alternatives should be screened  in  terms of their feasibility  accord-
    ing to the criteria discussed previously.   An overall assessment  of the
    implementation feasibility of the alternatives for management  acjency(s) and
    institutional arrangements should be  based on all  the criteria discussed.
                              >
3.8 Combined Plan Evaluation and Selection

    The regulations on State WQM Plans do not  specifically  require that alterna-
tive plans be developed and evaluated.  However,  given the  complexity of  the
choices involved  in developing State WQM Plans, it is  recommended  that a  sys-
tematic evaluation of alternatives be undertaken  where necessary.  This section
of the planning process suggests procedures for plan  evaluation and selection.

    A.  Combine Alternative Technical Plans  that Meet  Standards  with
       Alternative Management Plan Corresponding  to Technical Plans

       Technical  and management planning  should yield a series  of  technical plans
    for which an  alternative management  plan to implement the technical plan  has
    been presented.  At this step, the alternative technical plans should be
                                      3-50

-------
simply combined.

   For each alternative technical  and management plan that is combined into an
alternative State WQM Plan, sufficient detail  concerning the schedule of
actions to be undertaken should be provided to enable accurate evaluation
of the plan in terms of meeting 1983 water quality goals.

B. Compile Information on Alternative Plans

   The following information on the plans should be assembled for comparison
of alternatives:

   1. Contribution to Water Quality and Other  Related Water Management Goals
   of the Area (Information from Chapters 5-8);

   2. Technical Reliability (Information from  Chapters 7-8);

   3. Monetary Costs (Information  from Chapters 7-8; methodology for cost
   evaluation provided in Chapter  11);

   4. Environmental  Effects (Information from  Chapters 7-8, methodology
   for environmental evaluation provided in Chapter 13);

   5. Economic and Social Effects  (Methodology for evaluation of economic
   and social effects provided in  Chapter 13);

   6. Implementation Feasibility (Information  from Chapters 9 and 10);

   7. Public Acceptability (Guidance on means  to assure public involvement
   in the planning process provided in Chapter 4).

   Much of the above information will have been developed  in the planning
process; that which  has not should be compiled in order to be able to proceed
to final plan selection.  Information may be conveniently  assembled on tables
like those presented in Chapter 14.

   The format and procedures provided in Chapter 13 for compiling information on
alternative plans is specifically  designed to  fulfill the  need for the appli-
cant to prepare an environmental assessment on the plan.  Chapter 14 provides
optional guidance on plan evaluation and selection.

C. Compare Alternative Plans and Select Final  Plan

   1. Effects of Alternative Plans

      Comparison of alternatives and selection of a final  plan should be
   the product of public deliberation over the merits of the various plans
   under consideration.  A discussion of means to involve  the public in
                                  3-51

-------
       the overall  planning process  is  provided  in  Chapter  4.   Suggested  procedures
       for public involvement in  selection  of the final  plan are  provided in
       Chapter 14.

       2.  Vary Alternatives if Necessary for Final  Selection

          To achieve the most desirable overall  plan,  a  variant or  composite  of
       plans originally proposed  could  be considered.

       3.  Prepare Environmental Assessment  of Plan:   Environmental, Social,
          Economic Impact -- Element (p)

          Chapter 13 provides guidance  on impact assessment.   This  guidance
       should be followed to complete the requirements of element (p)
       of a State WQM Plan.

    D.  Develop Detailed Description  of  Plan Features

       In the process of screening,  evaluating,  and selecting  plans, features
    of the plan may not have been developed in sufficient detail.   At  this
    step, the timing and detail of the  plan should  be  finalized.  A critical
    path chart may be a useful format for depicting the  sequencing  of  plan
    implementation.

    E.  Include Provisions for Performance Assessment,  Plan  Revision,
       and Updating

       The plan, which covers a 20-year period,  should be updated as necessary,
    and must be certified annually by the governor.   Procedures for performance
    assessment and updating both  technical  and management features  of  the plan
    are to be specified in the initial  plan submittal.

3.9 Plan Outputs

    The major elements of a State WQM Plan  are presented in Table 3.1  (p.3-56 ff.)
along with the criteria for meeting  the requirements  of the regulation.   These
criteria may be used by the States and  EPA  in their reviews to determine  if  the
State WQM Plans conform with the  requirements of the  Act, regulations,, and the
continuing planning process.

    In addition to the elements in Table 3.1, the plan should  include  provisions
for performance assessment, plan  revision,  and updating.  These provisions should
describe procedures for assessing progress  of plan  implementation,  for modifying
specific plan elements, for developing  certain elements  in  more detail, and  where
possible, provide alternatives in the event that an original course of action
                                      3-52

-------
proves infeasible or inadvisable in  light of changed  conditions.

3.10 Plan Adoption,  Approval,  and Revision

     The following chart (Table 3.4)  depicts the sequence  of  plan  adoption,
approval, and revision for plans developed by designated areawide  planning
agencies as well  as  by State agencies.   These steps correspond  to  the  re-
quirements of Part 131.20-22.   These  procedures  are generally self explan-
atory in the regulations.   However,  further clarification  of  the criteria
for State certification of plans for  designated  areas and  EPA approval  of
State WQM Plans is presented in this  section.

    A. Review and Certification of Plans for Designated Areawide
       Planning Areas (S131.20TnT

       Designated areawide planning  agencies may submit all or  parts of the
    State WQM Plan developed for the  designated  area  for review and certifi-
    cation by the State.  (In  the case  of interstate  areas, designated  area
    plans should first be  submitted  to  the State encompassing the  majority
    of the designated area population).   Annual  review and certification of
    such plans is also required pursuant to S131.22.   States  should review and
    certify plans developed by designated areas  according  to  the following
    criteria:

       1. Requirements of  Part 130 and  131 (SI31.20(f)(l)(i))

          The criteria by  which the  State reviews the parts of  the State WQM
       Plan developed by designated areawide agencies should  be the same as
       the criteria  applied in the EPA  review of the  State WQM  Plan as  a whole:
       the plans  or  parts  thereof should conform to the requirements of the
       Act and approved planning process, and contain the  plan  elements stated
       in Part 131.   Where grants have  been made to areawide  agencies  under
       the interim grant regulations  (40 CFR Part 35, Subpart F),  the  plans
       or portions thereof should meet  the requirements of the  interim  grant
       regulations and approved work  plans.  Nevertheless, all  plans developed
       for areawide  planning areas should be consistent with  the State  WQM Plan
       according to  the criteria presented below.

       2. Water Quality Control Needs (S131.20(f)(l)(ii))

          In addition to the overall  review criteria  of meeting the Part 130
       and 131 requirements, the State  should ascertain whether the plans or
       parts thereof, are  consistent  with other  plan  elements developed for
       the area by the State or in cooperation with the State.  In particular,
       the State should ensure that the  plans or parts thereof, meet the adopted
       State water quality standards  and are consistent with  approved maximum
       allowable daily loads of pollutants and point  source waste.load  allocations,
                                    3-53

-------
          Table 3.4  Plan Adoption,  Approval, and Revision
                     Procedures
A.   Plan Review and Certification
     Ffor portions  of a  State WQM Plan
     Developed by Designated Areawide
     Planning Agencies)

     1.   Plan Developed  and Public
         Participation Completed
         (5131.20(a))
               A.    Plan Review and Certification
                                     a State WQfTTlan
                                            (for portions  of
                                            Developed by a State Agency)
                                            1.   Plan  Developed  and  Public
                                                Participation Completed
                                                (S131.20(a))
                                                                                         i
    Plan Submitted to Elected
    Officials and Governor for
    Review and Recommendation
    (S131.20(b))
                    2.
                        Plan Submitted to Local  E'ected
                        Officials  for Comment (S131.20(c))
    Comments by Governor;
    Comments by Elected Officials
    Within 30 days (S131.20(b))
4.  Plan submitted to Regional
    Administrator for Comment -
    Optional  (S131..20(d))
5.  Plan Formally Submitted to
    Governor (S131.20(e))
6.  Plan Reviewed,  Certified,
    Conditionally Certified or
    not Certified by the Governor
    (S131.20(f)), (9))
                    3.   Plan  Submitted  to  Regional
                        Administrator for  Comment —
                        Optional  (S131.20(d))
                   B.
Plan Adoption

1.
                            Plan Adopted by the State
                            (S131.20(h))
                   C.   Plan Submission
                            Final Plans Subnitted to
                            Regional  Administrator --
                            no later  than Nov.  1, 1978
                            ($131.20(1))

                                    4
                            Portions  of Plans  (Interim Outputs)
                            Submitted —  according to above
                            procedure at  any time during  develop-
                            ment of plans (S131.20U))
                   D.    Plan  Approval

                        1.  Plans  Approved,  Conditionally
                           Approved,  or Disapproved  by
                           Regional Administrator  — Within
                           120 days of  submission  (S131.21(a),(b),(c))


                   E.    Plan  Review and  Revision

                        1.  State  or Designated Area  Reviews,
                           Revises Plans  (if necessary) Annually
                           (S131.22(a))
                       2.  Minor Plan Revisions Submitted to
                           Regional Administrator --
                           through State  in the Case of
                           Designated Areas (S131.22(b))
                        3.   Plan Revisions Resulting from
                            Determinations of the Administrator
                            or State (S131.22(cl)
                       4.  Substantive Revisions Submitted to
                           Regional Administrator — According
                           to Original Review, Certification,
                           Submission, and Approval Procedures
                           (S131.22(d))
                                      3-54

-------
3. Consistency with Existing Law; Recommendation for Change of
   Existing Law ($151.20(f)(l)(TTT)T

   The State should also determine whether implementation of the plan
would be consistent with existing State and local  laws regarding land
use and environmental  protection, or whether implementation of the
plan would require changes in such laws.  The State should determine
how to resolve conflicts between recommendations of the plan and exist-
ing State and local law, and in adopting the plan accept, reject, or
modifying the proposed solutions to such conflicts.

4.  Basis for Selecting Management Agencies (§131.20(f)(l)(iv))

    Finally, the State should determine whether the plan includes adequate
recommendations concerning the agencies that the Governor could select
to implement each  provision of the plan,  For each aspect of the plan
it is necessary to have a management agency or agencies capable of
implementing that  portion of the plan.  Each management agency must
be capable of meeting the applicable requirements of §131.11(o).
The determination  of the applicable requirements will be based on
an agency's assigned responsibilities under the plan.  For example,
an agency responsible for implementing parts of the regulatory program
would not necessarily have to have authority to build waste treatment
facilities,

5.  State Adoption of the Plan (§131.20(f)(1)(v))

    The State should either certify that the plan or parts thereof will
be incorporated as the official State WQM Plan (or element thereof)
for the appropriate planning area or if the plan is deficient, deter-
mine tha specific  changes and schedule for such changes to be made by
the designated agency in order to receive State certification.
                               3-55

-------
            Table 3.1

            40 C. F. R.  Part 131
Criteria  for Meeting Requirements
  (a) Planning boundaries. A delinea-
tion, on a map of appropriate scale, of
the following:  (1) The approved State
planning areas included in the  State
planning  process  submitted  and  ap-
proved pursuant to 5  130.41 of this Chap-
ter and areawide planning areas desig-
nated  pursuant  to § 130.13  of  this
Chapter.
  (2) Those areas  in  which  facilities
planning has been deemed necessary by
the State pursuant to § 35.917-2 of this
Chapter.
  (3) The location of each water quality
and effluent limitation segment identified
in § 131.1Kb) (2).
  (4) The location  of  each significant
discharger identified in  § 131.11(c).
  (5) The location  of fixed monitoring
stations.
  (NOTE: Such monitoring station locations
may be omitted  11 such locations are avail-
able in the EPA water quality Information
system).
 (a)  Self-explanatory
  (b) Water quality assessment and seg-
ment classifications. (1) An assessment
of existing  and potential water quality
problems within the approved planning
area  or designated areawide  planning
area, including an identification of the
types and  degree  of problems and the
sources of  pollutants (both point and
nonpoint  sources) contributing  to the
problems. The  results of this assessment
should be reflected in the State's report
required under Section 305(b)  of the
Act.
  (2) The classification of each segment
as either water quality or effluent limita-
tion  as defined  in  § 130.2(o)  of this
Chapter.
  (i) Segments shall include the sur-
rounding-  land areas that contribute or
may contribute  to alterations  in the
physical, chemical, or biological charac-
teristics of the surface waters.
  (ii) Water quality problems generally
shall be described in terms of existing or
potential  violations of water  quality
standards.
   (iii)  Each  water quality  segment
classification shall include  the  specific
water quality parameters requiring con-
(Sideration in the total  maximum daily
load allocation process.
   (iv)  In   the  segment  classification
process, upstream sources  that con-
tribute or may contribute to such alter-
ations should  be  considered when iden-
tifying boundaries of each  segment.
   (v)  The classification  of segments
shall be based on measurements of in-
stream water quality, where available.
  (b)  Self-explanatory
                                        3-56

-------
            Table 3.1

            40 C.  F.  R.  Part 131
   (c) Inventories  and projections.  (1)
An inventory of municipal and Industrial
sources  of pollutants  and  a ranking of
municipal sources  which shall be used
by the State in the development of  the
annual   State  strategy   described   in
§ 130.20 of this Chapter and the "project
priority list" described in  §35.915(c)  of
this Chapter.  The inventory shall  in-
clude a description, by parameter, of the
major waste discharge characteristics of
each significant discharger of pollutants
based on data  from the National Pol-
lutant Discharge Elimination System and
the  associated  compliance  monitoring
systems, whenever  available.
   (2) A  summary  of  existing land  use
patterns.
  (3) Demographic and economic growth
projections for at least a 20-year plan-
ning period  disaggregated to the level
of detail necessary to  identify potential
water quality problems.
   (4) Projected municipal and industrial
wasteloads based on § 131.11 (c) (1) and
(3).
   (5) Projected land use patterns based
on § 131.11(0) (2) and (3).
Cntena_for_Meet_1]ia.Returnernan!§__	 ..
 (c)

     (1)   The inventories of municipal and
 Industrial  sources should include all such
 sources  contained in the planning area.  Mun-
 icipal sources should be, ranked consistent
 with the most current State ranking system
 as  approved by the EPA R.:qionai Office.  The
 Industrial  sources inventory need not be
 prioritized, but should include all such
 sources  subject to NPDES permit issuance.

     Analysis (and/or sjrvwry; of significant
 sources  should include information on:

     -- flow of discharge
     — all  major discharge waste
       characteristics including all
       parameters which are limited by
       an NPDES permit or which cause a
       violation of Water Quality Standards
     — Numerical permit restrictions giver
       in terms of concentrations or mass
       per unit of time
     — Stringency of effluent limitations
       related to BPT, BAT, or meeting
       Water Quality Standards
     — Final date for compliance with
       applicable effluent limitations

     (2)   Show land use patterns at a level of
 detail appropriate for design of pollution
 abatement strategies; as a guide the fol-
 lowing size units of land should be classi-
 fied according to land use:

     -- 40-160 acre parcels in developed
       and developing areas (for purposes
       of facilities planning); these parcels
       should be on a map of suitable scale
       such as 1"=2000'
     -- 640 acre parcels or larger in unde-
       veloped areas with a scale appropri-
       ate for evaluating runoff problems (e.g.
       soils maps)

     (3)   -- Show how demographic and
             economic projections relate
             to OBERS Series E projections;
          — show consistency with projections
             used 1n State air quality plans
          — show how projections are dis-
             aggregated to each planning area
             and within planning areas.

     (4)   Show how wasteload factors have
 been developed.

     (5)   Show projected land use patterns
 based on (c)(2) and (3) and consistent
 with level  of detail 1n (C){2).  Show
 how population growth shown in (C)(3) is
 allocated to land uses in (C)(5).
                                      3-57

-------
             Table 3.1

             40 C. F. R.  Part  131
Criteria for  Meeting Requirements
   (d)  Nonpoint source assessment. An
 assessment  of water  quality problem*
 caused by nonpoint sources of pollutants.
   (1) The assessment shall include a de-
 scription of the type of problem, an iden-
 tification of the waters affected (by seg-
 ment  or  other  appropriate planning
 area), an evaluation of the seriousness of
 the effects on those waters, and an iden-
 tification  of nonnoint  sources (by cate-
 gory as  defined  in   5131.1HJ))  con-
 tributing to the problem.
   (2)  Any nonpoint sources of pollutants
 originating outside a segment which ma-
 terially affect water quality  within the
 segment shall be considered.
   (3)  The  results of this assessment
 should be reflected in  the States' report
 required under Section  305 (b)   of  the
 Act.
 (d)
      Include  nonpoint source assessment in
 water quality assessment required  under (b)
  (e) Water quality standards. The ap-
plicable water quality standards, includ-
ing the Statewide antidegradation policy,
established pursuant to Section 303(a),
(b), and (c) of the Act and any plans
for the revision of such  water quality
standards.
(e)  Self-explanatory
  (f) Total maximum daily loads. (1)
For each water quality segment, or ap-
propriate portion thereof, the total al-
lowable maximum daily load of relevant
pollutants  during critical flow condi-
tions for each  specific  water  quality
criterion being violated or expected to be
violated.
  (!) Such  total maximum dally  loads
shall be established at levels necessary
to achieve  compliance with applicable
water quality standards.
  (ii)  Such loads shall  take  into ac-
count:
  (A)  Provision for seasonal variation;
and
  (B)  Provision of a margin of safety
which takes into account any lack of
knowledge concerning the  relationship
between effluent  limitations and water
quality.
  (2) For each water quality segment
where thermal water quality criteria are
being violated or expected to be violated,
the  total  daily  thermal  load during
critical flow conditions allowable in each.
segment.
  (i) Such loads shall be established at
a level necessary to assure the protection
and propagation of a balanced, indige-
nous population  of fish, shellfish, and
wildlife.
  (ii) Such loans shall take into account:
  (A)  Normal water temperature;
  (B)  Flow rates;
  (C)  Seasonal variations;
  (D)  Existing  sources  of  heat input;
and
  (E)  The  dissipative capacity of the
waters within the identified segment.
 (f)

     (1)   Specification of  flow conditions
 under which maximum daily  load is calculated.

     (i)   Demonstration that  the selected
 maximum  daily load for each  water quality
 segment  and each parameter is. consistent
 with meeting the water quality standard
 (this may require use of an  analytic model).

     (11) .   Show the relationship between
     seasonal variation and the choice of
     the  design flow conditions.
          .   Show the rationale used in
     determining the margin of safety

     (2)   Same criteria as  (f)(l)  above.
                                      3-58

-------
           Table 3.1

           40 C. F. R. Part 131
Criteria  for Meeting  Requirements
   (iii) Each estimate shall Include an
 estimate of the maximum heat input that
 can  be made into the waters  of each
 segment where temperature is one of the
 criteria being violated or  expected to be
 violated and shall  include  a  margin of
 safety which takes into account lack of
 knowledge concerning the  development
 of thermal water quality criteria for pro-
 tection and  propagation of flsh,  shellfish
 and wildlife in the waters of the identi-
 fied segments.
  (3) For  each water quality segment, a
 total allocation for point sources of pol-
 lutants and a gross allotment for non-
 point sources of  pollutants.
   (1) A specific  allowance  for  growth
shall  be included in  the  allocation for
point sources and the gross allotment for
nonpolnt sources.
   
-------
                      K,  Par?  131
   (3)  Each  pollutant  load allocation
established pursuant to  this paragraph
shall.incorporate en allowance for antic-
ipated economic and population growth
over at least a five-year period and an
additional allowance reflecting the pre-
cision  and validity of the  method used
in determining such allowance.
   (4)  Establishment of  pollutant load
allocations shall be coordinated with the
development of terms and  conditions  of
permits  under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System and with
any hearings pursuant  to Section 302
and 316(a) of the Act relating to a source
discharging to or otherwise affecting the
segment.
   (Nome: Point source load allocations shall
not be fietermlned  by designated areawlde
planning agencies except where the State has
delegated  such responsibility to the  desig-
nated agency. In  those cases where the re-
sponsibility has not been delegated, the State
shall determine point source load allocations
for the designated areawide planning area).
  (h) Municipal  waste treatment sys-
tems  needs. (1) The municipal waste-
water collection and treatment system
needs by 5-year increments, over at least
a 20-year period including an analysis of
alternative waste treatment systems, re-
quirements for and  general availability
of land for waste treatment facilities and
land  treatment and disposal  systems,
total  capital funding required  for con-
struction,  and a program to provide the
necessary financial arrangements for the
development of 'such  systems.
  (2) The identification  of municipal
waste treatment systems needs shall take
into consideration:
  (i)  Load  reductions needed  to  1>e
achieved by each waste treatment system
in order to attain and maintain  appli-
cable water quality standards and effluent
limitations.
  (ii) Population or population equiva-
lents to be served, including forecasted
growth  or decline of such population
over at least a 20-year period following
the  scheduled date  for  installation of
the needed facility.
  (ill)  The results  of preliminary and
completed planning conducted  under
Step I  and Step  H  grants  pursuant to
Title II of the Act.
  (NOTE: In the absence of the Title H plan-
ning described above,  the State is expecte'd
to develop the necessary estimates and anal-
yses required under i  131,ll(h) (1)).
  Criteria for Meeting  Requirements
      (3)   Show  how  the allotment for growth
  reflects anticipated  economic and demoqraohic
  growth over a five-year period, consistent with
  projections developed under (c),

      (4)   Show  existing permit terms under
  (c) and proposed  permit terms under (m).
(h)

     (1-2)  For  each facility, provide an analysis of how
each major alternative for treatment  (treatment and discharge
re-use, land application) has been considered; after choosing
one of the above approaches show the  following information
regarding alternatives for meeting treatment needs:

     — service  areas
     — flows to be treated, over 20  years
        by 5 year increments
     -- wasteload reduction including pre-
        treatment requirements and requirements
        for higher than base level control
        where needed to meet waste load al-
        location
     — type of  treatment (physical,  chemical,
        biological  or combination thereof)
     — population to be served including
        relationship with population  and land
        use projections shown in (c)
     ~ Indications of any infiltration/inflow
        problems  and possible corrective mea-
        sures
     — preliminary Identification of sludge
        disposal/utilization options
     — costs of treatment, infiltration/
        Inflow correction and sludge  utilization
        or disposal [based on available 201
        or 208 plans, or preliminary  cost
        estimates]
     ~ Indication of proposed program for
        financing capital and operating
        costs of treatment

   (3)  Self-explanatory
                                        3-60

-------
          Table  3.1

          40 C.  F.  R.  Part 131
  (1) Industrial waste treatment systems
needs,  (l) The anticipated industrial
point source wasteload reductions re-
quired to attain and maintain applicable
water  quality  standards  and  effluent
limitations for at least a 20-year plan-
ning period (in'5-year increments).
  (2) Any alternative considerations for
industrial sources connected to munici-
pal systems should be reflected in the
alternative considerations  for such mu-
nicipal Watse treatment system.
Criteria for Meeting Requirements
 (D

      (1)  Show Industrial  flows as projected
 in (c) and needed load  reduction to meet load
 allocations described in  (g),  for a 20 year
 period in 5 year increments

      (2)  As part of the  information
 developed for (h), show relationship of
 Industrial flows to amount of  flow to be
 treated by municipal systems  (if systems
 are interconnected); specify  the cost
 recovery requirements that would apply to
 Industrial users and the  degree to which
 cost recovery would provide financing of
 treatment works
  (j) Nonpoint source control needs. (1)
For each  category of nonpoint sources
of pollutants  to be  considered in any
specified  area as  established in  the
State/EPA agreement (see  5 130.11  of
this  Chapter),  an  identification and
evaluation of all measures necessary to
produce  the  desired level  of control
through application of best management
practices  (recognizing that the applica-
tion of best management practices may
vary from area to  area depending upon
the extent of water quality problems).
  (2)  The evaluation shall  include  an
assessment of nonpoint  source control
measures  applied thus far, the period of
time required to achieve the desired con-
trol (see § 131.11 (m)), the proposed reg-
ulatory programs to achieve the controls
(see § ISl.lKn)), the management agen-
cies needed to achieve the controls (see
§ 131.11(o)), and the costs by agency and
activity, presented by 5-year increments,
to achieve the desired controls,  and a
description of  the proposed actions nec-
essary to achieve such controls.
  (3)  The norrooint source  categories
shall include:  (i) Agriculturally related
nonpoint  sources of pollution including
runoff from manure disposal  areas, and
from  land used for livestock and crop
production;
  (ii)  Silviculturally related nonpoint
sources of pollution;
  (iii) Mine-related sources of pollution
including new, current  and  abandoned
surface  and underground mine runoff;
  (iv)   Construction  activity related
sources of pollution;
  (v)  Sources  of pollution from disposal
on land in wells or in subsurface exca-
vations  that affect ground and surface
water quality;
  (vi) Salt water intrustion into  rivers,
lakes, estuaries and groundwater result-
ing from  reduction of fresh  water flow
from any cause, including Irrigation, ob-
struction, groundwater  extraction, and
diversion; and
 (J)

     (1)  For each  nonpoint source category
 identified  in  (d)  and each planning area or
 sub-area delineated in (a) show the following:

     (2)  .  Alternatives and measures chosen
 for reducing pollutants from existing nonpoint
 sources to  a level  consistent with the  gross
 allotment established for such sources

          .  Alternatives and measures chosen
 for new or  potential nonpoint sources so as
 to maintain existing water quality

          .  For each alternative measure and
 chosen measure for reducing pollutant gener-
 ation from  existing or new nonpoint sources
 show:

     — period  of time to carry out measure
        (also see m)
     -- adequacy of regulatory program to
        implement measures (also see n)
     — agency(s) to supervise implementation
        (also see o)
     — costs of implementing controls
        (both public and private sector  costs)
     -- budget  of agency to supervise
        implementation

     (3)  self-explanatory
                                      3-61

-------
      Table 3.1

      40 C. F. R. Part 131
Criteria for Meetino Requirements
   (vli)  Sources of pollution related  to
 hydrologic modifications, including those
 caused  by  changes in the  movement,
 flow, or  circulation  of any navigable
 waters or groundwaters due to construc-
 tion and operation of dams, levees, chan-
 nels, or Sow diversion facilities.
   (NOTE: Nonpolnt source control needs need
 not be determined by designated areawlde
 planning agencies where the Governor has
 determined pursuant to Section 208 (b) (4)
 of tho Act that the State will develop non-
 point source control requirements  on  a
 Statewide basis.)
   (k)  Residual  waste control  needs;
 land disposal needs. (1) An identification
 of the necessary controls to be estab-
 lished  over the  disposition  of  residual
 wastes which could affect water quality
 and a description of the proposed actions
 necessary to achieve sjich controls.
   (2)  An identification of the necessary
 controls to be established over  the dis-
 posal  of pollutants on land or in sub-
 surface excavations-4o protect ground
 and surface water quality and a descrip-
 tion of the proposed actions necessary to
 achieve such controls.
   (NOTE: Residual waste control needs need
 not be determined by  designated  areawlde
 planning agencies where the Governor has
 determined pursuant to Section 208{b) (4) of
 the Act that the State will  develop residual
 waste control requirements pursuant to Sec-
 tion 208(b)(2) (J) and  (K) on a Statewide
 basis.)
    (k)

          (1)  Provision for utilization or disposal
    of residual  wastes from municipal, industrial
    and private  facilities should be  included in
    (h) and  (i)

          (2)  Identification of all existing
    and proposed residual waste, and  subsurface
    disposal sites  in area.  Identification of
    control measures  needed to be implemented
    for existing residual waste, land,  and
    subsurface disposal sites including abandoned
    sites.   Identification of control measures
    to be Implemented for new residual  waste,
    land, and subsurface disposal sites, to
    regulate future increases in wasteloads from
    such sites.   For  each control measure above,
    Identification  of corresponding regulatory
    program  to implement controls.  Demonstration
    that the planning process includes  an
    analysis of  wasteloads generated  from residual
    waste disposal  sites.
  (1)  Urban and industrial stormwater
systems needs.  (1) An identification of
the required Improvements to  existing
urban  and  industrial stormwater sys-
tems,  including combined sewer over-
flows, that are  necessary to attain and
maintain applicable water quality stand-
ards.
  (2)  An  identification  of the  needed
urban and industrial stormwater systems
for areas  not presently served over at
least a  20-year planning period (in 5-
year increments)  that are necessary to
attain  and  maintain applicable  water
quality  standards, emphasizing  appro-
priate land management and other non-
structual techniques for control of urban
and industrial stormwater runoff.
  (3)  A cost estimate for the needs iden-
tified in (1) and (2) above, the reduction
hi  capital construction  costs  brought
about by nonstructural control measures,
and any capital and annual operating
costs of such facilities and practices.
      (1)

          (1)  An analysis  of the magnitude of
      existing and anticipated urban stormwater
      problems including  those resulting from
      combined sewer overflows.   A specification
      of measures to be undertaken either to
      better manage existing storm and combined
      sewer systems and prevent  entry of pollu-
      tants to such systems, or  to provide for
      storage and treatment of such runoff.

          (2)  Specification of  performance
      criteria for new construction of urban
      stormwater systems, so as  to minimize any
      stormwater problems (including a regulatory
      program to implement  performance criteria).

          (3)  Estimation of the effect on capital
      construction costs  brought about by non-
      structural control  measures.  Cost for
      Improvements to existing systems and for
      implementing performance criteria for new
      systems including:

          — public and private  sector capital costs
          — operations and maintenance costs
                                      3-62

-------
          Table 3.1

          40  C.  F.  R.  Part 131
  (m)  Target abatement dates. Target
abatement  dates or schedules of  com-
pliance for  all significant  dischargers,
nonpolnt source control measures, resid-
ual  and land disposal  controls,  and
stormwater   system   needs,  including
major interim and final completion dates.
and  requirements that are necessary to
assure an adequate tracking of progress
toward compliance.
Criteria for Meeting Requirements
(m)

     For each category of  sources identified
under (b) indicate:

     -- schedule of compliance with terms
        of NPOES permit
     — schedule to implement BMP for all
        nonpoint sources,  stormwater
        systems and residual  waste systems
     — include interim  completion dates
        and proposed scheduling of regulatory
        actions
  (n) Regulatory programs. (1) A de-
scription of existing State/local regula-
tory programs which are being or will be
utilized to implement the  State water
quality management plan. The descrip-
tion shall  include the  regulatory ap-
proach  to  be employed, the statutory
basis for the  program, and relevant ad-
ministrative  and financial  program
aspects.
  (2)  A  description of necessary addi-
tional State/local regulatory programs to
be established in order to implement the
State water Quality management plan.
The description  shall  include  the pro-
posed regulatory approach, the necessary
legislation, and anticipated administra-
tive and financial capabilities.
  (3) The regulatory programs described
In f 131.11 (n) (1) and (2)  should gen-
erally  take fun advantage  of  existing
legislative authorities and administrative
capabilities.  However,  such programs
shall assure that:
  (1)  To the extent  practicable, waste
treatment management  including point
and nonpoint source management shall
be on a Statewide and/or  an  areawlde
basis  and  provide for  the control or
abatement of all sources of pollution In-
cluding inplace or accumulated deposits
of pollutants;
  (ii)  The location, modification and
construction  of any facilities, activities,
or substantive changes in use of the lands
within  the  approved  planning area,
which might result in any new or delete-
rious discharge directly or indirectly into
navigable waters are regulated; and
  (iii)  Any  industrial  or  commercial
wastes  discharged  Into any  publicly
owned treatment works meet applicable
pretreatment requirements.
  (n)

      (1-2|   Demonstration that management
  agency(s)  recommended to implement plan
  have authority and capability specified
  in S208(c)(2) to provide waste treatment
  management on an areawide basis.  Demon-
  stration that planning process has iden-
  tified and evaluated all sources of
  pollution  in the area and developed appro-
  priate control alternatives for existing
  and  potential forms of pollution, including
  waste load reduction levels consistent
  with meeting and maintaining water quality
  goals of Section 101(a)(2).

      -- For each category of pollutant sources
         identified in the planning process
         (including nonpoint source categories
         in  (d)), identification of corresponding
         controls included in the initial plan.

              Demonstration  that an  adequate
  regulatory  program  for  each category  of
  pollutant sources  identified  in  the plan-
  ning  process  is  included  in the  plan, by
  documenting:

      — conditions and situations  in which
         regulation applies, including  abatement
         requirements
      — timing of regulations,  notice, and hearings
      -- legal  form of regulation e.g., activity
         permits,  land use controls, zoning,  building
         codes, licensing of pollutant  generating
         activities, conservation plans,  etc.
      — legal authority for regulation;  adequacy
         of existing law or proposed new  regulation
      — agencies responsible for implementing
         regulation, agency staffing and  funding
         for programs

      (3}(i-ii)  Same documentation as  (n)(1).
  Demonstration that, to the extent practicable,
  waste treatment management is on an areawlde
  and/or Statewide basis.

         (iii)   Demonstration that pretreatment
  requirements of §307 of the Act will  be met.
  Demonstration that implementation of  8307
  requirements and other requirements proposed
  In the plan  will allow proper functioning of
  facilities proposed in (h)(l).
                                     3-63

-------
         Table  3.1

         40  C.  F.  R.  Part 131
  (o) Management agencies.  (!)  The
identification of those agencies recom-
mended for designation by the Governor
pursu-int to § 130.15 of this Chapter to
carry out each  of the provisions of the
water quality  management  plan.  The
identification shall include those agen-
cies necessary to construct, operate and
maintain all treatment works identified
in the plan and those agencies necessary
to implement the  regulatory  programs
described in §,131.11(n).
  (2) Depending upon an agency's as-
signed responsibilities under  the plan,
the agency must have adequate author-
ity and capability:
  (i) To carry out its assigned portions
of an approved State water quality man-
agement plan(s)  (including the plans
developed for areawide planning areas
designated  pursuant  to  Section 208(a)
(2),  (3), or (4) of the Act) developed
under this part;
  (ii) To effectively manage waste treat-
ment works and related point and non-
point source  facilities  and   practices
serving  such area in conformance with
the approved plan;
  (iii) Directly  or by contract, to design
and construct new works, and to operate
and maintain new and existing works as
required by nny approved water quality
management plan developed under this
part;
  (iv) To accept and utilize grants  or
other funds from any source  for waste
treatment  management   or  nonpotnt
source control purposes;
  (v) To raise revenues, including the
assessment of user charges;
  (vi) To incur short  and long term In-
debtedness;
  (vii) To assure, In implementation of
an approved water quality management
plan, that each  participating community
pays its proportionate share of related
costs;
  (viii)  To refuse to  receive any wastes
from a municipality  or subdivision
thereof, which does not comply with any
provision of an approved water quality
management  plan applicable  to  such
areas; and
  (ix) To accept for treatment industrial
wastes.
Criteria  for  Meeting Requirements
 (o)

      (1)  For each planning area  and for
 each category of sources identified in the
 plan, identify agency(s) responsible for
 construction, operation, and maintenance
 of treatment works, and for carryi ng out
 the  regulatory programs specified in (n)

      (2)  For each requirement  (o)(2)(i-ix)
 relating to authority of management agencies
 to carry out various functions  indicate the
 source of authority, the specific legislation
 or regulation specifying how such authority
 may  be exercised by the appropriate agency,
 and  the budget authority to implement each
 element of the plan.
  (p)  Environmental,  social, economic
Impact. An assessment of the environ-
mental, social, and  economic impact of
carrying out the plan.
(P)

     (1)  Environmental  assessment of the
plan (either at  the  level  of each planning
area or portions of  planning areas) including
Identification of

     ~ plan schedule
     ~ effectiveness in meeting water
        quality  goals
     ~ direct costs
     -- social,  economic,  environmental Impact
                                   3-64

-------
                               CHAPTER 4

                         PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
4.1  Introduction

     A.   Need for Public Involvement

         The success of a water quality plan depends on its acceptance
     by the public and in particular affected units of local  government.
     It is important that the general public in the planning area be
     actively involved in plan development and that public participation
     in the implementation phase of the plan be encouraged.  Due to the
     complexity of planning, it is necessary to provide a structured
     program of public involvement to assure adequate exchange of
     information and opinion between the public and the planning agency.

     B.   Legal Requirements

         Public particpation is an important element in any water quality
     planning effort.  Section 101(e) of the Act states:

              Public participation in the development, revision,
              and enforcement of any regulation, standard, effluent
              limitation, plan or program established by the
              Administrator (of EPA) or any State under this
              Act shall be provided for, encouraged, and
              assisted by the Administrator and the States.

         Parts 130 and 131 establish  extensive citizen participation
     requirements.  Citizen participation is mandated throughout the
     entire planning process.  In addition, the Environmental  Protection
     Agency has published regulations specifying the minimum guidelines
     for public participation in water pollution control efforts.   These
     regulations (40 CFR 105), summarized below, require planning agencies
     to do the following (See 40 CFR 105 for complete requirements):

         1.  Provide technical information "at the earliest practicable
         times and at places easily accessible to interested or affected
         persons and organizations" and to assist the public in understanding
         and responding to water programs.

         2.  To have "standing arrangements for early consultation and
         the exchange of views with interested or affected persons and
         organizations on development or revision of plans, programs or
         other significant actions prior to decision-making."

         3.  To maintain a current list of interested persons  and
         organizations to be notified, when appropriate or required by
         law, concerning agency hearings, rule-making, or other
         significant actions.


                                   4-1

-------
         4.  To develop procedures to insure that information and evidence
         concerning water programs, when submitted by citizens, will  receive
         proper attention.  In particular, public reporting of water  pollu-
         tion law violations is to be encouraged.

         5.  To provide "full  and open information on legal proceedings under
         the Act" to the extent consistent with court requirements and to a
         degree that does not prejudice the conduct of litigation.

         6.  To provide opportunities for public hearings on proposed regula-         >
         tions where appropriate or required by law.   Public hearings should
         be conducted whenever there is sufficient public interest in a
         matter.  Whenever doubt arises concerning the degree of public
         interest, the question should be resolved in favor of a hearing, or,
         if necessary, by providing an alternate opportunity for public
         participation.  EPA regulations on procedures for public hearings
         should be followed if state agency procedures are less stringent.
         (See 40 CFR 105.7 for guidelines concerning public hearings.)

         The activities listed represent only the minimum steps that  planning
     agencies should undertake to provide for public involvement.  In many
     instances, however, there are alternative methods for accomplishing
     this public involvement.   The rest of this chapter discusses ways to
     comply with these requirements through a variety of formal programs
     of public participatton.

4.2  Public Participation Program Development                                       ™

     A.  Public Participation in Formulating the State Continuing Planning
         Process

         Since the continuing planning process is the State's overall
     management and decision-making framework for water quality programs,
     it is important to design this process in such a way as to enable, encourage
     and assist public involvement.  The State must seek public reaction on the
     design of this decision-making process before submitting the process.
     for EPA approval.  It is especially important to involve the interested
     public in developing the State/EPA Agreement on level of detail  and
     timing for carrying out State WQM Plans, and to specify the public
     involvement program that will be followed in plan development in the             *
     State/EPA Agreement.

     B.  Relationship with the State WQM Planning Process
                                                                                      -»
         A program for public involvement must be an integral part of the
     State WQM planning process and should outline the specific means for
                                   4-2

-------
public participation at each step in the planning process.   The
planning process should be designed so progression from one stage
to another cannot take place without certain well-defined inputs
from the public.

C.  The Major Phases in the Planning Process

    The planning process involves several  general phases, although
planners may define the specific tasks within the phases somewhat
differently.  The phases are important because they are the activities
around which a program of public participation should be organized.
The planning process will include the following phases.

    1.  Establishment of Goals and Objectives

        During the first stage of plan development, the planning agency
    should establish channels of communication with the public.  Citizen
    opinion should be sought on the following issues:

        1.  The identification of water quality problems and priorities
        for resolving these problems.

        2.  The relative importance of water quality goals  in relation
        to other community goals.

        3.  The role that water quality management can or should play
        in achieving community goals.

        4.  The use of land use controls and a regional  approach to
        waste treatment to protect water quality.

        5.  The use of land disposal and other innovative or contro-
        versial pollution control technologies.

    2.  Design of Alternatives

        Since water quality planning is but one aspect of community
    planning, it is important, particularly in the design of alter-
    natives, that the planning agency consider how community goals
    may conflict or be compatible with water pollution control
    alternatives.

        Citizen views should be solicited  on the compatibility  of
    various water pollution control approaches (municipal and indus-
    trial  source control, land use and land management control  for
    point and nonpoint sources, and control of residual  waste)  with
    other community goals.
                              4-3

-------
    It is also necessary to solicit public reaction to possible
management alternatives for implementing the plan.   Compatibility
of the management alternatives with the following kinds of planning
and implementation agencies may be considered:

    - comprehensive planning agencies;
    - general purpose local governments;
    - sewer districts;
    - air quality control agencies;
    - water quality control agencies;
    - soil conservation districts;
    - solid waste planning agencies;
    - transportation planning agencies;
    - economic development agencies;
    - parks and recreation agencies.

3.  Impact Assessment

    Since the evaluation of certain aspects of the plan is largely
subjective, it is important that those affected-by and interested in the
plan be involved in assessing its impact.  Special  efforts should be made
to obtain the reaction of those individuals and institutions that
would bear the responsibility for financing, construction, opera-
tions, monitoring, and enforcement.  The public should also have
the opportunity to request further study of plan impact.

4.  Recommendation and Acceptance of the Final  Plan

    During this stage, the planning agency should consider such
factors as the attainment of additional benefits from increased
expenditures, or the minimization of undesirable social, economic,
and environmental impacts.  Public comment that accurately reflects
community goals and preferences is therefore needed on plan impact.

    At this stage, it is vital that elected officials who are
responsible for local approval of the recommended plan are made
aware of public comments and opinions.  This is a major responsi-
bility of the entire public participation program.

5.  Plan Revision

    Once a plan has been selected, the public should still have the
opportunity to participate in any periodic updating of the plan.
Information should be available continually to permit evaluation of
progress made under the plan.
                              4-4

-------
0.  Principles for Public Involvement

    While there are no hard and fast rules for structuring a public
involvement program, several general principles should be kept in
mind:

    1.  The program should be an active program.   Since the optimum
    degree of public involvement will usually not occur spontaneously,
    simply providing information to those who ask for it is not adequate.
    An active program is needed to seek out and encourage those who can provide
    useful inputs, as well as those who will be affected by the plan.

    2.  The program should include adequate provision for disseminating
    information to the public.  One of the greatest inhibitors to
    active public involvement in planning programs is lack of readily
    available information.  To preclude this from happening, all data
    and information available to planners must be easily accessible
    to the public.  Depositories of documents and data should be clearly
    identified to the public, and should remain open for use by the
    public at times that are generally convenient to the average citizen.
    Assistance should be provided in locating specific documents or data
    retained in the depository, reproduction equipment should be available
    for use at a moderate cost.  Mailing lists, newsletters, and other
    publications  should  also be used,

    3.  The program should be allocated adequate time and funding within
    the overall planning effort.  Costs of the program should be included
    in the planning budget.

    4.  The planning agency should designate and identify to the public
    a person or persons  to be directly responsible for the public involve-
    ment program.

    5.  Elected officials and representatives of state and federal agencies
    who must pass judgement on a plan should be involved in all significant
    planning decisions.

    6.  The program should be responsive to all interested citizens.  Parti-
    cipation in planning should not be dominated by any one interest group
    or individual.  This can best be done by including without exception
    in mailings, notifications, etc., all parties who express interest in
    the project or who have been involved in community issues related  to
    water quality planning and management.
                              4-5

-------
4.3  A Model Program for Public Involvement

     The task of providing for public participation in the planning process
is, ultimately, the job of matching specific participation activities with
specific planning tasks.  There are many ways in which this matching might
occur, depending upon how agencies define their tasks in detail  and which
participation activities they choose to emphasize.   The following table
(pp. 4-7, 4-8), lists six categories of public participation activity which
should accompany each major phase of the planning process and matches them
with one suggested definition of planning tasks.  Within each category of
participation activity will be found one, or several, suggested  alternatives
for that activity.

     One useful method by which planning agencies can assure compliance with
the public participation guidelines is to match the public participation
items in the table with their own definition of planning tasks.   Those
responsible for assuring compliance can then "check" a participation activity
as it occurs and be sure, finally, that for each major planning  task all
the major participation activities have been assured.

4.4  Institutional Alternatives for Representation of the General Public

     Institutional arrangements to implement requirements for public partici-
pation are a matter of discretion, as long as the provisions made meet the
criteria of the Act and Federal regulations.  However, those arrangements
chosen should:

     1.  Provide clearly defined channels through which citizens may contact
     decision-makers and planning staff.

     2.  Define responsibility for actively carrying out public  involvement
     activities.

     3.  Provide adequate funding for public participation throughout the
     planning process.

     4.  Be responsive to all interested citizens, but not dominated by any
     single interest group.

     Although a number of institutional arrangements may meet these
requirements, a formal mechanism to ensure full citizen understanding arid
approval of the plan will probably be necessary, given the scope and
complexity of water quality problems.
                                   4-6

-------
ss
       3>
       §
       c a
       a c
3 c
VI <0
C u
O w
O -H
    xi -a

    1?  c
    F*4  (ri
    h  C
    0)  O
     B  C
    rt  J
                 88UTJB3H
                  a^qtssod
               suoxs^oap  ICUTJ
                   3DT30U
               03  XouaSe  jo
               jo  uoi^Baapf suog
               03UB3STSSB
                     SOOJOJ  1JSBX
                           oou pw
                sduojg KaoSTApy
                  PUB
              soiao^isodap
C
P
anning
ng
nu
Cont
Process
Process Design
State /EPA
Agreement
1
2
   -o
    c    >>
 CO  3    •»->
 tO  O    •!-
  IQ
                                                                   4-> r-
                                                                   CO
                                                                   O)
                                                                   E-W
                                                                   t/JC
                                                                              OJ
                                                                              O
                                                                              l-
                                                                              3
                                                                           (/)O
                                                                           CCO
                                                                   CO
B. Sta
1
                                                                CO
                                                                     C+J
                                                                     oc
                                                                    T-tU-
                                                                    -l->>
                                                                     -i



                                                                       co
                                                                               O •>-
                                                                                -Pr—
                                                                                 Cn3
 tOX
T3(O
 S-S
 (O
'Or-
 CiO
 (d-t->
                                                                                                    T3
                                                                                                    IB
                                                                                                    O
          
-------
>
M
H
§
M
H

2
PAR
PUBL
                 a^qfssod uau/i

               UOJJBUUOJUJ
       r-t a
       ctj C)
       60 O

       Jf &
               SUOTSTOOp


                 JO
                  aoiqou
       o
       ^
       o
       u-i
       q
       W
                          ot^qnd

            sScuciu 01  XouoSc ao

            •[Cnpf Afpuf .jo q , ddy
         £
       u J=l
       O
       c   L
     g -H

     rJ O

     g"
     O W
     •H W
     *J O
     nj t >
     6 o
     M eg
     o

     "SI
     J-l -ttj
                  SWOT A

               jo uoTauaopisuog
                aoiqou
                     SOO.IOJ ^SDJ.
              soa^qiimuoo ooq py
                sdnoaS
                   S.7CUT1UOS
                        soijooodg
              SOT.TO3 TSOdop 1?3BQ
              pUB  SOSBS^OJ Srt3{J
                                          CO

                                         T3

                                          OI
                                       S_+J
                                       X3O
                                       c (0
                                       CTl
                                                                                                (0
                                                                                                   O
                                                                                                   O

                                                                                                   LU
                                                                                          0
                                                                                                >OJ=
                                                                                                ,<= o o
                                                                                                uiooc
•a
c
 I—
CU (O
a: >
 
                                                                                                                         I
                                                        4-8

-------
     An exemplary arrangement would be a fully-funded public participation
working group, acting in partnership with the planning staff and management
agency(s).   Funds should be made available to cover the cost of printing,
announcements in the media, and other incidental  expenses.

4.5  Program Evaluation

     An important part of any public involvement  program is a set of feed-
back mechanisms to continually monitor the success or failure of the program.
If feedback indicates ongoing efforts are inadequate, adjustments should
be made as  soon as possible, so that the success  of the program will not be
jeopardized.  In making an evaluation, information may be drawn from a
variety of  sources, including:

     - nature of informal contacts initiated by the public;
     - amount of interaction between the planners and the public;
     - attendance at meetings and hearings;
     - amount of related public-sponsored activity such as meetings,
       workshops, door-to-door campaigns, etc.;
     - amount and nature of media coverage;
     - formal surveys.

     In addition to monitoring inputs received from the public participation
program, an evaluation should also be made of the effect these inputs had on
subsequent  decision-making.  An effective public  participation program should
be structured in such a way that the inputs received have an influence on
later decisions.  Otherwise, the program is inadequate, and steps should be
taken to correct the deficiency.

4.6  Advisory Committee for Designated Areas

     In compliance with Section 304(j) of P.L. 92-500, the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency has entered into an agreement with
the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, Army, and Interior.
Notice of Final Agreements was published in the Federal Register, Vol. 38,
No. 225, November 23, 1973.

     As a result of this agreement, the designated area planning agency must
create a policy advisory committee, with representatives of the Departments of
Agriculture, Interior, and Army invited to participate.  Each Department may
or may not  participate as it deems appropriate.  This requirement provides for
coordination of the programs authorized under other Federal laws with water
quality planning.

     Provisions should also be made for inclusion of representatives of the
general public on the policy advisory committee.   The membership
may be further expanded as considered appropriate by EPA and the State.  A
special effort should be made to include representatives of agencies res-
ponsible for other environmental programs being conducted in the planning
area.
                                   4-9

-------
     The requirement for State policy advisory committees  is fully discusse^B
in Chapter 2.3.B.                                                         ^|

     In addition to Policy Advisory Committees,  citizen  advisory committees
should be established.   It is unlikely that adequate citizen input will  be
obtained solely through the Policy Advisory Committee.   Citizens can provide
valuable inputs throughout the planning process.   Their  participation should
be actively encouraged.
                                   4-10
I

-------
                                CHAPTER 5

                         WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
5.1  Introduction
     Water quality standards are an essential  part of the State water
quality management (WQM) system.  The standards:

     .   Publicly define the State's water quality objectives,  and hence
        form the basis for its planning;

     .   Serve as the basis for determining National  Pollution  Discharge
        Elimination System (NPDES) permit effluent limitations for
        pollutants which are not specifically  addressed in the effluent
        guidelines or for pollutants for  which the effluent guidelines
        are not stringent enough to protect desired uses;

     .   Serve as a basis for evaluating and modifying Best Management
        Practices (BMP) for control of nonpoint sources;

     ,   Serve as a basis for judgment in  other water quality related
        programs, including water storage for  regulation  of stream flow,
        water quality inventories, control of  toxic substances,  thermal
        discharges, cooling lakes, aquaculture, and dredged and fill
        activities.

     .   Contain the State's antidegradation policy.

     A.  Purpose and Applicability

        The purposes of water quality standards are set forth  in
     Section 303 of the Act and in 40 CFR Part 130.   Standards must be
     reviewed and revised where appropriate at least once every three
     years to assure that the standards are consistent with the Act
     and regulations.
                                   5-1

-------
     Water quality standards must apply to all  surface water of
the United States, including the territorial  seas.   In addition,
they must be applicable to all  sources of pollutants.   Provisions
in the standards which directly or indirectly exempt any class
of sources, such as nonpoint sources, are not allowable.   These
guidelines, however, provide for methods to deal  with exceptional
situations (e.g. extreme high or low flow conditions).

     EPA strongly supports the establishment of water quality
standards which will support the protection and propagation of                ^
fish, shellfish and wildlife and recreation in and  on the water.
In furtherance of this objective, EPA believes that water quality
standards should be established at levels consistent with the
national water quality goal of section 101(a)(2)  of the Act for
every stream segment wherever those levels are attainable.

B.   Scope of State Review and Revision of Water  Quality Standards

     Portions of existing water quality standards may be adequate
and may require no revision.  Hence, the State will only have to
concentrate on those standards that are inadequate.  Revisions most
probably will be needed in three key areas:

     1.  Uses—must be upgraded wherever 1983 national water quality
     goal uses are not designated and higher uses are attainable;

     2.  Criteria—new criteria should be added and existing criteria       •
     modified as necessary to support the use, particularly in the
     area of toxic pollutants; and

     3.  Antidegradation—revision of antidegradation policies is
     likely to be required.

     In addition, in its review and revision process, the State must
assure that its water quality standards provide for the attainment
of the water quality standards of downstream water  (Sl30.17(c)(4)).

C.   General Content of State Hater Quality Standards

     A centralized State water quality standards  document must contain        «
at a minimum, the following components:

     1.  Certification that the standards are included within State
     law;

     2.  Statement of general policy consistent with 40 CFR §130.17;

     3.  Statement of applicability of water quality standards,
     including the State's mixing zone policy;

     4.  Definitions;

     5.  A listing of the use designations for all  the waters of the
     State, including any site specific water quality criteria for
     specific segments.

                         5-2

-------
   6.  Water quality criteria that define the conditions necessary
   to maintain the beneficial water use designations;

   7.  An antidegradation statement;

   8.  Specifications of statistical requirements and reference
   to analytical testing and sampling procedures to determine if
   standards are being met; and

   9.  A listing of outstanding national resource waters.

In addition, it is recommended that the standards document contain
maps delineating stream segments which can be clearly referenced
to the stream use designation list.

   Where water quality standards are developed Statewide they must
be incorporated by reference into the individual State WQM plans.

   Where water quality standards are developed for a planning area
through the State WQM process, any or all of the above components
can be incorporated by reference in the centralized State water
quality standards document.  Identification of the State WQM plan
that contains the standards and the date of adoption and EPA
approval of the water quality standards contained within the plan
must be included.

0.  Relationship to the State WQM Process

   The State WQM process must contain mechanisms, including
public participation, to conduct water quality standards reviews
and revisions.  By conducting standards reviews as a part of
the State WQM process, States can assure that standards are an
essential component of the overall State water quality planning
and management program.  The State WQM process may itself result
in recommending revisions to water quality standards.

   Water quality standards, once approved or promulgated, are to
be included as an element of the State WQM plan ($131.11(e)) and
are to be implemented through the State's WQM process.  Water
quality standards play a key role in the State WQM process by
setting the goals for plan development and implementation and
providing information necessary to complete other outputs of the
State WQM program.  In turn, the State WQM process is the vehicle
for coordinating actions leading to water quality standards imple-
mentation.  All aspects of the process are directed to achievement
of standards.
                              5-3

-------
         The NPDES permits issued pursuant to Section  402  of the  Act
      and nonpoint source regulatory program controls  (BMP)  implemented
      pursuant to Sections 208,  303(e)  and 313 of the  Act  must  be con-
      sistent with the State WQM process.   Together, point and  nonpoint
      source controls must result in the achievement and maintenance of
      water quality standards.

         If a violation of water quality standards can be  shown to be
      attributable to pollution  from a  particular point source  or group
      of sources then effluent  limitations must be imposed.   (8301(b)(l)(C)
      of the Act.)

         As no uniform or national  BMP  for nonpoint sources  is  mandated
      under the Act, the level  of BMP control may differ from area to area.
      Water quality standards will  serve as a basis for evaluating and
      modifying BMP's for control of nonpoint sources.  If water  quality
      standards violations attributable to nonpoint sources  continue after
      BMP's are implemented, the BMP's  must be modified where practicable
      to control specifically those pollutants responsible for  the violations

         In some cases, even the reconsidered BMP's may not  be  sufficient to
      stop the nonpoint source  related  water quality standards  violations.
      These violations may be continuous or rainfall related.  If the 1983
      goal uses and associated  criteria are not being  achieved., and cannot
      be achieved through application of modified BMP's, then limited
      spatial and temporal exceptions can  be granted under certain condi-
      tions (see the discussion  on  irretrievable man-induced conditions
      on p. 5-7 and mixing zones on p.  5-16).  All  exceptions must be
      reexamined every three years  during  the water quality  standards
      reviews to determine if new nonpoint source control  technologies or
      strategies that have been  developed  can restore  the  excepted waters.
5.2  Water Uses
      A.  Use Designation and Regulatory Requirements

         The regulations (S130.17(c)(2)-(3))  provide the  following:

         "(2)  The State shall  maintain those water uses  which are
         currently being attained.   Where existing water  quality
         standards specify designated water uses  less  than  those
         which are presently being  achieved,  the  State shall  upgrade
         its standards to reflect the uses actually being attained.

         "(3)  At a minimum, the State shall  maintain  those water
         uses which are currently designated  in water  quality stan-
         dards, effective as of the date of these regulations or as
                                   5-4

-------
      subsequently modified in accordance with S130.17(c)(l) and
      (2).  The State may establish less restrictive uses than
      those contained in existing water quality standards, however,
      only where the State can demonstrate that:

         (i)  The existing designated use is not attainable
         because of natural background;

         (ii)  The existing designated use is not attainable
         because of irretrievable man-induced conditions; or

         (iii)  Application of effluent limitations for existing
         sources more stringent than those required pursuant to
         Section 301(b)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act in order to
         attain the existing designated use would result in sub-
         stantial and widespread adverse economic and social
         impact."

   The States must review their water quality standards and revise
them as appropriate.  The review must include standards for all
waters and revisions must be consistent with the following:

   1.  Public health must be protected for all waters;

   2.  The national water quality goal uses of protection and
   propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife and recreation in
   and on the water must be designated in the standards for all
   waters, wherever attainable, including those segments where
   they are not currently being attained instream.  (The meaning
   of the term "attainable" is discussed under Ch. 5.2(C)--Exceptions
   to Designating National Goal Water Uses.)

   3.  Where current water quality conditions support a higher use
   than that for which a segment is presently classified, standards
   for that segment must be upgraded to include the higher use;
   and

   4.  Water quality standards must provide for the attainment of
   the water quality standards assigned to downstream waters.

   In some cases it may be appropriate to provide for seasonal use
designations where uses are not attainable on a year round basis.
Fo;r example, intermittent streams that are dry in the summer might
qualify for seasonal designations.   However, seasonal  uses are
not appropriate where the effects of the discharge of pollutants
might preclude uses in other seasons.
                              5-5

-------
     B.   Maintenance of Existing Uses

          Each beneficial  water use which is  currently being achieved
     must be included in the use designations (§130.17(c)(2)).   There
     are no provisions for exceptions to this requirement.   Beneficial
     uses include such uses as protection and propagation of aquatic
     life, recreation in and on the water, public water supplies, agri-
     cultural  and industrial water supplies,  and navigational  uses.
     Waste assimilation and waste transport*  are not approvable use
     designations.   The State's antidegradation  policy and procedures
     must assure maintenance of existing uses.

     C.   Exceptions to Designating National  Goal Water Uses

          Where a national  water quality goal use, as specified by
     Section 101(a)(2) of the Act, is determined to be unattainable, the
     exception should be confined to a carefully limited geographic  area.
     The lowered use in that area must not result in the loss  of an
     existing or potential  use elsewhere.  In most cases, the  unattaina-
     bility of the use should be permitted to occur only in the near term,
     and specific criteria should be adopted  which will  lead in the
     direction of early future designation of the use.  Where  primary
     water contact recreation is not attainable, but secondary contact
     recreation is attainable, the latter use should be designated.

          Exceptions must be reviewed as part of the three year water
     quality standards review and removed if  the previously designated
     uses become attainable.  National water  quality goal uses must  then
     be designated.

          The Regional Administrator has authority to approve  any proposed
     State water quality standards.  He is also  responsible for reviewing
     existing and proposed standards which do not include designated uses
     consistent with the national water quality  goal.  The Regional
     Administrator, where appropriate, will  request additional  information
     from the State to evaluate the basis for establishing uses at levels
     less stringent than the national water quality goal.

          The following guidance provides direction on EPA policy for
     considering lesser uses than those associated with the national
     water quality goal.

          1.  Determinations for Upgrading Existing Designated Uses

              Waters that are currently designated for uses which require
          water quality lower than that necessary to maintain  the national
          water quality goal uses must be upgraded wherever attainable.
          The State should take into account  environmental, technological
* The term "waste transport" is not meant to apply to transportation of
wastes by ship or barge.
                              5-6

-------
social, economic and institutional factors, but it must upgrade
standards in the following circumstances:

     a.  Where existing standards specify uses lower than those
     actually being achieved instream;

     b.  Where existing water quality will improve as a result
     of current technology-based control measures (BATEA and
     BPWTT) being applied, and a higher use can be anticipated;
     and

     c.  Where existing water quality standards specify uses or
     criteria that will not provide protection for uses presently
     achieved or to be achieved in downstream waters.

2.   Determinations for Downgrading Existing Designated Uses

     Waters that are currently designated for national water
quality goal uses may not be downgraded unless the State can
demonstrate in writing that one of the conditions set forth below
exist  (§130.17(c)(3)).  Any downgradings must also be consistent
with the antidegradation policy (Section 5.4).  Any downgrading
is subject to the approval of the Regional Administrator.

     a.  The use cannot be attained because of natural background
         conditions

         This basis for an exception should have limited applica-
     tion.  It should be recognized that most water bodies have
     some communities of fish, shellfish and wildlife.  However,
     examples of natural background conditions which may preclude
     the aquatic life use include streams with leachate from
     natural heavy metal deposits and streams with natural
     ephemeral, intermittent or low flow conditions.

     b.  The use cannot be attained because of irretrievable
         man-induced conditions
         Man has changed his environment from that which occurred
     historically.  This basis for an exception applies only to
     irretrievable losses of national water quality goal uses
     that have occurred in the past.

         The term "irretrievable" in the context of these guide-
     lines means that the past loss of a national water quality
     goal use, due to man's modification of his environment, is
     considered permanent or incapable of being restored or
     regained.
                    5-7

-------
               Three  primary  situations may  qualify a  specific segment
           for an  exception:

               (1) Where  the national water quality goal  use is  not
               being  achieved due  to  nonpoint source pollution that
               cannot be abated with  application  of BMP's  or BMP's modified
               to  meet water  quality  standards and the activity or change
               in  land use is determined  by  the affected public to be
               essential.

               (2) Where  the national water quality goal  use is  not
               being  achieved due  to  hydrological modifications that
               cannot be removed or operated in such a manner as  to
               restore the use.

               (3) Where  the national water quality goal  use is  not
               being  achieved due  to  deposition of instream toxicants
               due to man's past point or nonpoint source  activities
               and such deposits are  not  capable  of being  removed by
               natural processes over an  appropriate planning period
               (usually 20 years)  and are not capable  of being removed
               by  man without a severe long-term  environmental impact.

           This basis for  an  exception must  not be used to waive  water
        quality requirements  with  respect to individual point or  nonpoint
        sources where control methods or  reasonable alternative control
        strategies are available.   It is  important to  remember that
        natural nrocesses  may require many years  to undo the damage that
        man has caused. Since the water  quality  standards uses and
        criteria provide a legal mechanism for imposition  of controls,
        downgrading national  water quality goal uses may allow continued
        abuse and  natural  recovery will be precluded.

           c.  The use cannot be attained because the  imposition  of
           controls above  or  in addition  to  the technology-based  require-
           ments of BATEA* and BPWTT** would be required and would result
           in a substantial and widespread adverse economic and social
           impact

               The Regional Administrator will carefully review the
           State's determination of what  constitutes a substantial and
           widespread impact  and warrants an exemption from designating


 *Best Available Technology Economically  Achievable  (S301(b)(2){A))
**Best Practicable Wastewater Treatment Technology  (S301(b)(2)(B))
                                   5-8

-------
               the use.  However, at a minimum, all  three of the following
               situations must be present:

                    (1)  Imposition of controls above or in addition to
                    BATEA and BPWTT would be required even though BMP's
                    will  be implemented;

                    (2)  The adverse economic and social impacts resulting
                    specifically from imposition of the controls, and
                    reflected in primary and secondary unemployment impacts,
                    plant closures, changes in governmental fiscal  base,
                    and other area economic indicators, are substantial
                    and widespread in comparison to other economic factors
                    affecting the area's economy, to national  economic
                    conditions and fluctuations, and can be expected to
                    persist for periods longer than provided for by adjust-
                    ment payments such as unemployment compensation; and
                    they are detectable in an area appropriate for measure-
                    ment, at least as large as a county or SMSA and, if
                    appropriate, any larger economic areas such as defined
                    by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of
                    Commerce.  In making a determination of substantial
                    impact, the positive economic and social impact of
                    enhanced water quality must be evaluated.

5.3  Water Quality Criteria

     State water quality standards must contain water quality criteria
which define the conditions necessary to maintain and protect the desig-
nated water uses.   Narrative and numerical criteria should be adopted
that will provide the best management basis for control of water pollution
and maintenance of high quality waters.  Numerical criteria are preferred
because they are more easily interpreted in defining specific control
requirements, but narrative criteria are useful also.

     When a water use classification is changed, corresponding criteria
changes must also be made.  Where waters are designated for multiple uses,
the standards must provide that the most stringent criterion for each
parameter will  be applicable.  Even when an existing use classification
is acceptable,  criteria may require revision in the light of new know-
ledge concerning human health and aquatic life needs.  Changes may also
be required in  response to specific determinations made pursuant to
Section 316(a)  of the Act.
                              5-9

-------
     In keeping with established EPA policy:

     .  Numerical criteria should be stated wherever possible;

     .  Biological or bioassay criteria should be employed where
        numerical values are not practicable provided that the criteria
        are described with enough detail to be implementable.  Bioassay
        criteria, for example, should specify those species to be
        used in particular waters and guidance should be given on how
        to use the results to draft permit conditions or modify BMP's;
        and

     .  Narrative criteria should be employed where other values cannot
        be established or to supplement numerical values.  Narrative
        criteria should include detail  sufficient to show clearly the
        quality of the water intended,  so that NPDES permit conditions
        and nonpoint source control requirements (BMP's) can be
        developed or modified based on  the criteria.

     Seasonal uses and criteria should  be adopted wherever necessary
and appropriate.  For example, where waters are used for propagation by
certain species only during certain periods of the year and such species
propagation requires higher levels of dissolved oxygen and/or lower
temperatures than otherwise necessary to protect the species, the
adopted criteria should include such higher dissolved oxygen levels
and/or lower temperatures for the periods when they are needed.  Another
example might be an intermittent stream during periods when no water
is present in the stream bed.  In this  case special criteria or use
designations may be appropriate.

     For any segment which provides habitat for any threatened or
endangered species identified pursuant  to the Endangered Species Act
(P. L. 93-205), water quality standards must be adopted which will
protect such species and preclude the destruction or modification of
the critical habitat of those species identified as critical.  Water
quality standards must also describe the water quality necessary to
assure the protection and propagation of protected species described
pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (P. L. 92-522), the
Migratory Bird Conservation Act (P. L.  70-257), and the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 701-711).

     A.  Numerical Mater Quality Criteria

        The Administrator's Quality Criteria for Water document
     published under Section 304(a) of the Act will represent normally
                                  5-10

-------
acceptable levels of water quality to support the related use.
While the Section 304(a) document will serve as the basic refer-
ence, other publications that define water quality criteria may
also be applicable.

     Specific numerical criteria generally should be adopted for
those parameters which represent serious existing or potential water
quality problems in the State.  The adoption of numerical values
for toxic substances is particularly important, to insure protection
of the highest uses and to provide a water quality basis for control
for these substances.  Site specific circumstances may permit less
restrictive criteria or require stricter limits for specific para-
meters than those contained in the Section 304(a) document.
Establishment of a numerical value for a criterion at a less
stringent level than that recommended in the Section 304(a) docu-
ment should be accompanied by an adequate technical justification
to the Regional Administrator.  Pursuant to the authority contained
in Section 510 of the Act, States may, of course, adopt more strin-
gent water quality criteria or water uses than that recommended by
EPA.

     The Administrator will periodically modify or add to the criteria
developed under Section 304(a).  Such changes should be considered
for adoption by the States during their next regularly scheduled
standards review following the change.

     For numerical criteria, the statistical requirements for data
interpretation and sampling must be stated, for purposes of applying
and enforcing standards.  Mean and maximum concentrations should be
stated where appropriate.  The time, place, method and duration of
sampling should be identified or referenced as a part of the water
quality standards to assure comparable results.  In general, sampling
locations and times should be based on critical conditions or alter-
natively should attempt to characterize the spatial or temporal
distribution of the pollutant or environmental parameter.  All methods
of sample collection, preservation, and analysis used in applying
the standards should be in accord with those prescribed in 40 CFR
Part 136.

     Revised water quality-standards criteria will need to reflect the
conditions in individual areas.  Some degree of instream biological
monitoring will often be necessary, both for establishing the standards
and in reviewing the effect of their implementation.
                         5-11

-------
   Criteria also may be expressed in terms of biological  parameters
such as bioassay or species diversity requirements provided that
such criteria ar^e stated in, a manner that will support specific
conforming control measures to be assigned on a case-by-case basis.
An example of a biological criterion might be the prohibition of
any deviation outside the range of normal variability for a given
species diversity index.  Modeling techniques generally are not
sophisticated enough to relate a percent loss of diversity to a
percent reduction in pollutants so wasteload allocations  will need
to be established based on best judgment as to cause and  effect.

   The State may elect to adopt 304(a) criteria by means  of
incorporation by reference, if State law authorizes that  device.
In that case, certain procedures should be followed to avoid con-
fusion.  First, the State should carefully identify the criteria
being adopted (parameter and associated use) and the document
being referenced (i.e. citation of 304(a) criteria document and
date of publication).  In addition, the State should explain what
criteria will apply in the event that the incorporated materials
are revised following adoption of the standards.  Presumably, the
State will specify that the incorporated criteria will continue
to apply until the next State standards review, in order  to assure
compliance with State requirements for due process, including
public hearings on revisions to standards.  Finally, the  State
should specify the location or locations within the State where
the criteria which have been incorporated by reference will be
reasonably available to the public for inspection and copying.

B.  Narrative Water Quality Criteria

   States should provide in the water quality standards that all
waters must meet the State's general narrative criteria.   EPA
recommends language consistent with that below:

   All waters shall be free from substances attributable to man-
caused point source or nonpoint source discharges in concentrations
that:

   1.  Settle to form objectionable deposits;

   2.  Float as debris, scum, oil or other matter to form nuisances;

   3.  Produce objectionable color, odor, taste, or turbidity;

   4.  Injure, are toxic to or produce adverse physiological or
   behavior responses in humans, animals or plants; or

   5.  Produce undesirable aquatic life or result in the dominance
   of nuisance species.
                             5-12

-------
        These general  narrative criteria can be used as a basis for
     contr&l activities.  Ecological principles and biological  monitoring
     techniques can be used to quantitatively define violations of most
     of these narrative criteria.   If it can be shown that harm has
     been caused to the balanced community of fish, shellfish and wild-
     life in the vicinity of a discharge due to settleable solids, for
     example, then those deposits  can be termed objectionable and
     measures can be taken to restrict the discharge of settleable
     solids.  Bioassays can be used to determine compliance with the
     narrative prohibition on toxicity.   Guidance for applying some of
     these techniques  can be found in the draft Section 316(a)  guidance
     manual dated September 30, 1974.

        The aesthetic  criteria are harder to quantify in terms  of
     violation.  Photographic records or public complaints can  provide
     a good indication of problems.  If the source of such violation
     can be identified, control actions  can be imposed by the regulatory
     agency based on such observations.

5.4  Antidegradation

     A.  General

        Each State must develop and adopt (or retain) a Statewide anti-
     degradation policy in the water quality standards and identify
     methods for its implementation through other components of the
     State WQM process in accordance with S130.17(e).  At a minimum the
     policy should contain the following components:

        1.  In all cases, existing instream beneficial water uses must
        be maintained  and protected.  Any actions that would intefere
        with or become injurious to existing uses cannot be undertaken.
        Waste assimilation and transport are not recognized beneficial
        uses;

        2.  Existing high quality  waters must be maintained at their
        existing high  quality unless the State decides to allow
        limited degradation where  economically or socially justified.
        If limited degradation is  allowed, it cannot result in  viola-
        tion of water  quality criteria that describe the base levels
        necessary to sustain the national water quality goal uses of
        protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife and
        recreation in  and on the water;

        3.  In all cases, high quality waters which constitute  an out-
        standing national resource must  be maintained and protected;
                                  5-13

-------
   4.  Any determinations concerning thermal discharge limitations
   under Section 316(a) of the Act will be considered to be in
   compliance with the antidegradation policy.

   High quality waters consist of those waters at or above the
minimum levels necessary to achieve the national water quality goal
uses.

   Existing approved antidegradation statements consistent with
S130.17(e) may be retained, but procedures for implementation must
be established through the State WQM process.  The process will
enable the State to determine on a case-by-case basis whether
and to what extent water quality may be lowered consistent with
§130.17.

B.  Public and Intergovernmental Review

   The State WQM process must provide that whenever an activity is
proposed which may degrade existing high quality waters, the State
will assure that there is adequate public and intergovernmental
participation in accordance with section 5.11.C. of this Chapter.

   Where the public and intergovernmental response, taken as a
whole, clearly opposes a proposed degradation, the State must give
serious consideration to that response and may not allow the pro-
posed degradation activity unless a substantial and convincing
justification for the activity has been presented.

C.  National Resource Waters

   Waters which constitute an outstanding national resource may
not be degraded.  At a minimum, waters in National and State
parks, wildlife refuges and waters of exceptional recreational
or ecological significance (for example, waters which provide a
unique habitat for an identified threatened or endangered species
or rivers designated under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act)
should be considered as outstanding national resource waters.  The
State's intergovernmental review notice (see section .5.11.C) should
include notice to the Federal, State, or other agencies responsible
for administration of the waters or other resource involved.  Such
notice should specifically call attention to the possible character-
ization of the waters in question as an outstanding national resource.

   EPA recommends that each State include in its water quality
standards an initial listing of the outstanding national resource
                               5-14

-------
waters of the State.  Such a list would provide a ready identification
of such waters.  The possibility of additions or deletions from time
to time should be expected.

D.  Antidegradation and Growth

   National antidegradation requirements should not be viewed as
a "no growth" rule.  Where the State intends to provide for further
development, the State WQM process should evaluate the alternative
measures which can be taken to preserve water quality at the levels
required by 5130.17.  The evaluation must take into account the
physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the water.
Examples of some techniques that can be used by the States
include:

   1.  Designing wasteload allocations to accommodate new sources,
   via reduction in current source loadings;

   2.  Restricting any new discharge of pollutants from new and
   existing sources;

   3.  Restricting any increase in pollutants discharged from
   existing sources;

   4.  Adopting a no mixing zone policy, thus requiring safe
   concentrations to be met at the end of the pipe;

   5.  Requiring land disposal for new projects; and

   6.  Requiring new nonpoint source activities to demonstrate no
   permanent adverse impact on water quality.

E.  Optional State Actions

   The State's antidegradation policy is to be designed for the
protection of existing water quality.   Use designations should not
be an issue, since the specific water quality standards should
always, at a minimum, designate existing beneficial uses.   The
State's water quality standards for high quality waters may, within
the constraints and limitations of monitoring practicability, set
forth the existing water quality of a segment.  Thus, the State may
adopt specific criteria at existing levels measured in the segment,
even though such levels may be more stringent than the Section 304(a)
criteria minimum levels for given uses.  Documentation of existing
water quality may be useful in the State WQM process as a baseline
against which any future degradation could be measured.
                             5-15

-------
     F.   Federal  Review of Antidegradation Policies  and Actions

          The State's antidegradation statement and implementing pro-
     cedures, as a part of its water quality standards and WQM process,
     are subject to the Regional  Administrator's review and approval.
     EPA encourages submittal  of  this statement and implementing pro-
     cedures to the Regional  Administrator for pre-adoption review so
     that the State may take EPA  comments into account prior to final
     adoption.

5.5  Mixing Zones

     A.   General
          A limited mixing zone, serving as  a zone of initial  dilution
     in the immediate area of a point or nonpoint source of pollution,
     may be allowed.   Establishing a mixing  zone policy is a matter of
     State discretion.   Such a policy, however,  must be consistent with
     the Act and is subject to the approval  of the Regional  Administrator.

          Careful  consideration must be given to the appropriateness of a
     mixing zone where a substance discharged is bioaccummulative and
     persistent or carcinogenic, mutagenic,  or teratogenic.   In  such
     cases the State must consider the ecological  and human health effects
     of assigning a mixing zone including such effects as bioconcentration
     in sediments and aquatic biota, bioaccummulation in the food chains,
     and the known or predicted safe exposure levels for the substance.
     In some instances, the ecological and human health effects  may be
     so adverse that a mixing zone is not appropriate.

     B •   Def.1Tlition_of Al 1 owabl e Mi xi ng Zones

          Water quality standards should describe the State's  methodology
     for determining the location, size, shape,  outfall design and in-zone
     quality of mixing zones, with sufficient precision to support such
     regulatory actions as issuance of permits and determination of BMP's
     for nonpoint sources.  Specifications should relate to the individual
     water body.  EPA recommends the following:
                              5-16

-------
1.  Location.   Biologically important areas are to be identified
and protected.  Where necessary to preserve the zone of passage
for migrating fish or other organisms in a water course, the
standards should specifically identify the portion of the
waters to be kept free from mixing zones.

2.  Size.  Various methods and techniques for defining the  surface
area and the volume of mixing zones for various types of waters
have been formulated.  Methods which result in quantitative
measures sufficient for permit actions and which protect the
designated uses of the water body as a whole are acceptable.
The area or volume of an individual zone or group of zones  must
be limited to an area or volume that will not interfere with the
designated uses or with the established community of aquatic life
in the segment for which the uses are designated.  The State WQM
process growth projections should be taken into account in  setting
the total mixing zone size for the water course.

3.  Shape.  The shape of a mixing zone should be a simple configura-
tion that is easy to locate in the body of water and that avoids
impingement on biologically important areas.  A circle with a
specified radius is generally preferable, but other shapes  may be
specified in the case of unusual  site requirements.  "Shore-
hugging" plumes should be avoided.

4.  Outfall Design.  Prior to designating any mixing zone,  the
State should assure that the design and location of the existing
or proposed outfall provides maximum protection of aquatic  resources.

5.  In-zone Quality.  Water quality standards should provide that
all mixing zones conform with the following requirements.  Any mixing
zone should be free of point or nonpoint source related:

    (a)  Materials in concentrations that exceed the 96-hour
    LC50 for biota significant to the indigenous aquatic community;

    (b)  Materials in concentrations that settle to form objec-
    tionable deposits;

    (c)  Floating debris, oil, scum and other matter in concentra-
    tions that form nuisances;
                          5-17

-------
      (d)  Substances in concentrations that produce objec-
      tlonable color* odor, taste or turbidity; and

      (e)  Substances in concentrations which produce undesirable
      aquatic life or result in a dominance of nuisance species.

C.  Mixing Zones for the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material

   EPA, in conjunction with the Department of the Army, has dev-
eloped interim guidelines to be applied in evaluating the discharge
of dredged or fill material in navigable waters.  (See 40 CFR
Part 230, Federal Register, September 5, 1975.)  The interim
guidelines include provisions for determining the acceptability
of mixing discharge zones (S230.5(e)).  The particular pollutants
involved should be evaluated carefully in establishing dredging
mixing zones.  Dredged spoil discharges generally result in a
temporary short-term disruption and do not represent a continuous
discharge of materials that will affect beneficial uses over a
long period of time.  A limited disposal operation whose primary
pollutant is inert suspended solids may qualify for a mixing zone
more readily than an operation discharging toxic pollutants.  The
potential for long-term disruption of beneficial uses should be
the primary consideration in establishing mixing zones for dredged
and fill activities.  State water quality standards should reflect
these principles if mixing zones for dredging activities are
referenced.

D.  Mixing Zones for Aquaculture Projects

   The Administrator is authorized, after public hearings, to
permit certain discharges associated with approved aquaculture
projects (Section 318 of the Act).  The regulations relating to
aquaculture (40 CFR Part 115, proposed June 7, 1974) provide in
part (8115.10(a)) that the aquaculture project must not result in
a violation of standards outside of the project area, and project
approval must not result in the enlargement of any previously
approved mixing zone.  In addition, the aquaculture regulations
provide that designated projected areas must not include so large
a portion of the body of water that a substantial portion of the
indigenous biota will be exposed to the conditions within the
designated project area (S115.10(e)).  Areas designated for approved
aquaculture projects should be treated in the same manner as other
mixing zones.  Special allowances should not be made for these
areas.
                             5-18

-------
5.6  Thermal Water Quality Standards

     Water Quality standards relating to heat are required by
Section 303(g) of the Act to be consistent with the requirements of
Section 316 of the Act.  In keeping with the provisions of Section 303
and Section 316:

     .   Water quality standards relating to thermal criteria must
        assure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous
        population consistent with Section 316.

     .   In areas in which a point source is entitled to the temporary
        immunities of Section 316(c), water quality standards should be
        established without regard to such immunity, but the standards
        may not serve as a basis for imposing effluent limitations on
        such source during the period of its immunity.

5.7  Water Quality Related Effluent Limitations Under Section 302
     of the Act   (Reserved,)
5.8  Stream Flows

     A.  Intermittent Streams

        Water quality criteria should be adopted for intermittent
     streams to the extent necessary to assure that conditions in the
     streams or stream beds will  not impair existing or designated uses
     in the stream or in downstream waters.
                                 5-19

-------
B.   Low Flow

     Water quality standards should protect water quality for
designated uses in critical  low flow situations, and individual
sources or categories of sources should not be categorically exempted
from compliance with such standards during critical  low flow periods.

     Waste!oad allocations for the achievement of water quality
standards may be based on a  specified low flow which can be regarded
as the critical low flow.  This critical low flow must be estab-
lished at a level  which assures protection of beneficial uses'desig-
nated in standards.  In many cases, this will be the average seven-
day low flow which occurs once in ten years.  In extreme situations
where flow falls below the critical low flow, the usually applicable
standards may be violated.  As an alternative to a critical! low
flow, States may adopt special low flow standards or policies to be
met seasonally or at all times regardless of low conditions.  Examples
of situations where this may be appropriate include streams which are
of a natural ephemeral or intermittent nature or streams where an
endangered species is present and special standards are necessary to
protect the species and its  habitat.

     The State WQM process should be designed to minimize the effect
of conditions which may result from point source discharges or storm
related nonpoint source runoff during low flow periods.  For example,
the WQM process may identify the need for NPDES permit conditions,
such as higher treatment levels or reduced discharge volumes necessary
to avoid or mitigate severe and long-lasting water quality impacts
during critical periods.  Seasonal limitations may be included, such
as requiring seasonal control of certain pollutants during critical
months.

     In addition, the State WQM process may identify special procedures
to be available to prevent major impacts as a result of low flow
periods.  Responses may include release of impounded waters, effluent
or storm water storage or modification of industrial production
schedules.

C.   High Flow

     Water quality standards should protect water quality in critical
high flow situations, and individual sources or categories of sources,
such as nonpoint sources, should not be categorically exempted from
compliance with water quality standards.

     The State WQM process should minimize the effects of conditions
which may result during high flow periods.  For example, permit
conditions and BMP's for nonpoint sources should anticipate periods
of critical high flow.  Many types of nonpoint source problems are
most intense during and after periods of precipitation, when flows
are higher than at other times.
                         5-20

-------
   Extreme high flow, like extreme low flow,  is  not a  required
design criterion for sources severely affected by the  extreme con-
ditions.  However, permits and nonpoint source controls  should
assure that in extreme high flow situations,  man-induced incremental
pollution will not result in severe and long-lasting water quality
impacts.  It may be appropriate for States to adopt specific  stan-
dards to be met at all times, regardless of flow.

   In addition, the State WQM process may identify special  proce-
dures to be available to prevent major impacts as a result of high
flow periods.  Responses may include curtailment of point source
discharges, if appropriate, or other feasible and useful measures.


      D.  Regulated Flow

         Flow augmentation and regulation is  not a substitute for
      adequate treatment or control of pollutant sources, but may be  an
      important consideration in WQM.  Minimum flow rates for regulated
      waters should be specified in State water quality  standards where
      necessary to protect and attain the appropriate  beneficial uses
      of any waters.

5.9  Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material

      As stated in section 5.5 of this Chapter,  EPA has  published
interim guidelines to be applied in evaluating activities involving
the discharge of dredged materials or fill material in navigable waters
(40 CFR Part 230).  Appropriate water quality standards  must  be  consid-
ered when discharging dredged or fill material.   The interim  guidelines
provide that:

      "After application of the approaches presented in  §230.4,  the
      District Engineer will compare the concentrations  of appropriate
      constitutents to applicable narrative and  numerical  guidance con-
      tained in such water quality standards  as  are applicable by law.
      In the event that such discharge would  cause a violation of such
      appropriate and legally applicable standards at  the perimeter of
      the disposal site after consideration of the mixing zone,  dis-
      charge shall be prohibited."  (40 CFR S230.4-2.)
                                 5-21

-------
      In addition the interim guidelines provide that:

      "In evaluating whether to permit a proposed discharge of dredged
      or fill material into navigable waters, consideration shall  be
      given to the need for the proposed activity, the  availability of
      alternative sites and methods of disposal  that are less damaging
      to the environment, and such water quality standards as are
      appropriate and applicable by law."

5.10  Groundwater

      EPA recommends that States adopt water quality standards to  protect
the underground waters of the State.  Such standards are not a Federal
requirement; however, standards for groundwater are particularly desir-
able to protect waters which are a present or potential  public drinking
water supply source or have particular ecological or hydrographic
significance.

5.11  State Water Quality Standards Review and Revision Procedures^

      A general description of the relationship between the Standards
Review Process and State WQM Process is provided in Chapter 2.3.E
("Review/Revision of Water Quality Standards and Definition of Anti-
degradation Policy").  See also Chapter 3.6.C.2 ("Specify Water
Quality Standards and Anti degradation Policy").   The interdependency
of the State WQM process and standards review/ revision  process makes it
necessary to initiate both activities within the same time frame,  com-
mencing with certain simplifying assumptions and proceeding later  to
more appropriate refinement in both areas.

      State water quality standards consist of water quality standards
which are approved or promulgated by the EPA pursuant to Section 303
of the Act and consist of designated beneficial  uses, water quality
criteria to support those uses, anti degradation policy, and implementa-
tion plans established pursuant to Section 303(a) and (b).

      A.  Relationship to State WQM Process

         40 CFR S130.10(c)(5) requires State water quality standards to
      be reviewed and revised in time to impact 1977-1983 management and
      regulatory decisions.  This is imperative for State water quality
      standards to be a meaningful tool in pollution abatement.  In this
      anticipates amending 40 CFR Part 120 to set forth the procedures
for State review and revision and EPA approval and promulgation of water
quality standards.
                                   5-22

-------
next three-year period of statutory mandated review/revision
activities, revisions to standards which are adopted should be
submitted to the Regional Administrator by January 1, 1977, to
comply with 40 CFR S130.10(c)(5).  The January 1 deadline will
assure that standards revisions will be approved or disapproved
and appropriate promulgation action taken in time to do the
following:


    1.    Set the objectives  for the initial  WQM plans which,
    by court order,  are due  November 1, 1978.


    2.   Provide the  necessary  information for  establishing water
    quality related  effluent limitations in  the second round of
    permits.

    The State/EPA agreement  on timing and level  of detail  for  the
 development of State WQM plans (40 CFR 5130.11) should provide
 for the completion  of standards  revisions in  time to meet
 40  CFR S130.10(c)(5) requirements.   The State's schedule  and
 milestones for reviewing and  revising standards required  pursuant
 to  40 CFR S130.10(c) must contain:

    1.   An identification of each designated areawide planning
    agency in the State which  is  involved in developing water  quality
    standards recommendations  and the date by  which such agency is
    expected to make its recommendations to  the State WQM  agency.

    2.   The date when the State intends to submit its proposed
    water quality standards  revisions to the Regional Administrator.

    3.   A list of the public hearings which  are expected to be held
    on the existing  and proposed  standards and the tentative dates
    for such hearings.

    4.   The projected dates  when  revisions to  water quality standards
    will be adopted  and submitted to the Regional  Administrator.

 B.   Proposed Revisions

    States should work closely with their Regional Offices in  dev-
 eloping proposed revisions  to standards.  Such a relationship will
 facilitate the development  of proposed, revisions which meet the
 requirements of the Act and expedite the Agency review process.
                              5-23

-------
    Each  State should submit three copies of Its proposed water
quality  standards revisions to the Regional Administrator and
Identify the proposed changes or additions in the submittal.  The
Regional Administrator may submit comments to the State on the
proposed revisions if comments would be beneficial.

C.  Public Participation and Intergovernmental Coordination

   The States should provide for maximum public participation and
Intergovernmental coordination 1n the standards review/revision
process.  Public hearings are a mandatory requirement of the pro-
cess.  All such activities should be conducted as a part of the
State WQM process.  The guidelines on public participation in
Chapter  4 set forth the need and legal requirements for public
participation and contain the principles for structuring public
involvement.

   The objective of the public participation and intergovernmental
coordination requirements is to involve the public and government
institutions in the review and revision of existing State water
quality  standards in a meaningful way.  They can make valuable
contributions toward establishing overall  water quality goals and
expectations for the State.  The public and government institutions
also can play a key role in developing the public support that
will ultimately lead to acceptance and implementation of the stan-
dards and achievement of the national water quality goal specified
in Section 101(a)(2) of the Act.

   In providing for public participation and intergovernmental
response, the requirements in 40 CFR Part 105 are applicable.  Such
requirements include but are not limited to the following:

   1.  A notice of the public hearing(s) must be published which
   includes:

      a.  Time and location of hearing;

      b.  Hearing agenda;

      c.  Notification of the availability of a Fact Sheet as
      required under Part 105.7(f).   The sheet must outline the
      major issues to be discussed,  relevant tentative State staff
      reports on standards, determinations on proposed revisions,
      and any additional information the public should be aware
      of prior to the hearing which is germane to the issues; and

      d.  The location where reports, documents, and data to be
      discussed at the hearing are available for public inspection.
                              5-24

-------
    2.   Notice  of  the  public hearing must be mailed to interested
    and  affected persons and organizations including private and
     Government  organizations and individuals who have filed with
     he  State requesting such notices.  Notice of hearings must
    also be mailed to  downstream States and Federal and State
    agencies which are affected or potentially could be affected
    by existing State water quality standards or proposed revisions
    thereto.

The  hearing notice(s) should solicit comments and provide oppor-
tunity  for public comment.  The State must prepare transcripts of
the  hearing(s) or a summary which must be available for inspection
by  the  Regional Administrator and the public.

    To facilitate  EPA review of existing or revised State water
quality standards, States should supply the Agency with any docum-
entation or information on review/revision activities which is
requested.  A  central file containing information documenting
review/revision activities should be maintained.  Such a file is
helpful in answering information requests by the Agency and public.

   Documentation may be needed by EPA to assess whether existing
or revised State water quality standards meet the requirements of
the Act.  Examples include the rationale for:

   1.  Why standards for a segment were not revised;

   2.  Why a particular criterion was not adopted; or

   3.  Why data or other information was or was not considered in
   reviewing or revising State water quality standards.

D.  Submittal of  State Adopted Revisions

   The Governor or his designee should submit to the Regional
Administrator three copies of revisions to State water quality
standards which are adopted.   The submittal  should also include
the following information which will  be helpful in reviewing the
revisions and determining whether the revisions meet the require-
ments of the Act:

   1.  A statement by the State Attorney General or other appropriate
   legal authority within the State that the revised water quality
                              5-25

-------
     standards were duly adopted by the State  and are included
     within State law.   (Note that standards are an element of the
     State WQM plan and regulatory programs  implementing the plan
     must assure that water quality standards  are met (see 40 CFR
     Part 130).   It is through these regulatory mechanisms that
     standards are enforced under State law.)

     2.   The identification of specific water  segments which have
     water uses in the revised water quality standards which are at
     the national water quality goal  levels  or which are less
     restrictive than the national  water quality goal  uses.

          A "less restrictive use" for the purpose of Part 120 is a
     use which requires a lower level  of water quality to be main-
     tained and protected.

     3.   The identification of the specific  water segments which have
     water uses in the revised water quality standards that have
     been upgraded.

     4.   The identification of the specific  water segments which
     have water uses in the revised water quality standards which
     are more restrictive than the existing  designated beneficial
     water uses.

     5.   Identification of specific water segments with revised
     standards which have less stringent water quality criteria than
     those criteria contained in the Administrator's Quality Criteria
     for Hater document for the appropriate  use or water conditions.

     6.   A summary of the intergovernmental  coordination and public
     participation which transpired in the development and adoption
     of the revised water quality standards.   The summary should
     include a discussion of the important comments received.  When
     requested by the Regional Administrator,  the State should also
     submit its rationale for adopting the revised water quality
     standards.

          The rationale often may be an important factor in determining
     whether to approve or disapprove a revision.  The Regional
     Administrator can request the rationale for the revisions
     actually adopted as well as for the rejection of other alternatives
     considered.

E.    EPA Review, Approval, Disapproval and Promulgation

     The Regional Administrator must review  the revised water quality
standards and approve -or disapprove the revision.  A standard is
revised only where there has been a substantive change in that
                         5-26

-------
standard.  Where the changes are not substantive (e.g. changing
the numbering system of a regulation or a document title but not
the content of the standards), 1t is not necessary to approve or
disapprove the change.  Any change, however, should be submitted
to the EPA for a determination as to its substantive nature.
Depending on the nature of a non-substantive change, 40 CFR
Part 120 may have to be corrected to reflect the change.

   1.  Approval

      Revisions to State water quality standards must be approved
   by the Regional Administrator if they meet the requirements of
   the Act and 40 CFR Parts 130 and 120.  When only a portion of
   the revisions submitted meet the requirements of the Act, the
   Regional Administrator can only approve that portion.  The
   Regional Administrator should promptly notify the Governor by
   letter of the approval and forward a copy of the letter to the
   appropriate State agency with any additional information which
   may be helpful in understanding the scope of the approval action
   and in conducting future review/revision activities.

      Where it is evident that the subsequent occurrence of
   particular events could or will result in a failure of the
   approved standards to continue to meet the requirements of the
   Act, those events should be identified in the approval letter
   to facilitate review/revision activities.

      The Regional Offices are responsible for preparing the
   Federal Register notice of approval amending 40 CFR Part 120
   and the accompanying action memorandum.  The notice should
   contain a description of the State water quality standards as
   they are affected by the approved revisions.  The notice must
   reference the documents containing the approved State water
   quality standards, give the dates of adoption and approval, and
   include the text of any previous promulgation actions.

      The Regional Offices must forward the notice and memorandum
   to the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water Planning and
   Standards (WH-551) for format review.  The notice will then be
   transmitted to the Federal Register by the Assistant Adminis-
   trator for Water and Hazardous Materials.  With the submittal,
   the Regional Offices must also forward a copy of each of the
   following:

      .  The letter from the appropriate State authority certifying
      that the standards were duly adopted and are included within
      State law;
                             5-27

-------
    .  The  letter transmitting the revisions from the State to
    EPA for approval;

    .  EPA  approval letter; and

    .  Copy of the approved revisions.

2.  Disapproval

    If the  Regional Administrator determines that the revisions
submitted  or the existing water quality standards themselves are
not consistent with or do not meet the requirements of the Act,
the Regional Administrator must disapprove such standards by
notifying  the Governor of the State by letter of that fact.
The letter must state the reason that the revision submitted
or the existing water quality standards are not consistent with
the Act and the specific revisions to State water quality stan-
dards which must be adopted to obtain full approval of the
revised standards.  The letter must also notify the Governor
that the Administrator will initiate promulgation proceedings
if the State fails to adopt and submit the necessary revisions
within 90-days after the date of notification.

   A revision whose subject matter is not an acceptable constit-
uent element of State water quality standards (e.g. Grandfather
clause or effluent guideline) and which is not consistent with
the applicable requirements of the Act must be disapproved.
The Regional Administrator must notify the State as required
above stating that such revisions must be deleted from water
quality standards in order to meet the requirements of the Act.
If the deletion is not made, the Administrator must proceed to
promulgate as necessary to supersede the inconsistent revision
(303(c)(4) of the Act).

3.  Promulgation

   Promulgation proceedings are initiated by the preparation
and publication of proposed regulations setting forth revised
State water quality standards.   As soon as possible after the
expiration of the 90 days, proposed revisions should be published
in the Federal Register:.  A public hearing(s) must be held on
the proposed standards.  Within 90 days of their proposal,
standards must be promulgated after giving due consideration
to comments received as a result of intergovernmental coordination
and public participation.
                           5-28

-------
   The Regional Office has a major role in promulgating
standards.  They should assist the Administrator by providing
the necessary background information and participating in
public hearings.  They also have primary responsibility for
preparing the notices of proposed and final rulemaking and the
action memoranda.  The documents should be forwarded to the
Deputy Assistant Administrator.

   If a State remedies the deficiencies in State water quality
standards by adopting revised standards which the Regional
Administrator determines meet the requirements of the Act prior
to promulgation, the Administrator will promptly terminate
promulgation proceedings.

4.  Withdrawal Notices

   A.  Proposed Rulemaking

       Whenever promulgation proceedings are terminated a notice
   of withdrawal of the proposed rulemaking must be published
   in the Federal Register.  The Regional  Offices are respon-
   sible for preparing the notice for the  Administrator's
   signature as well as the action memorandum.  Both documents
   should be forwarded to the Deputy Assistant Administrator.

   B.  Disapproval

       Water quality standards submitted for approval must
   either be approved or disapproved.  Disapproval must be
   followed by an EPA promulgation.  Whenever a disapproval is
   not followed by promulgation, the disapproval should be with-
   drawn by the Agency.  Where the withdrawal pertained to a
   disapproval of revisions submitted for  approval, the Regional
   Administrator must promptly approve the revisions.

   C.  Promulgation

       A promulgated standard should be withdrawn when it is
   no longer necessary to assure that State water quality stan-
   dards meet the requirements of the Act.  Withdrawal may be
   desirable for a variety of reasons.  For example:

      .   The State complied fully with a promulgation which
      required it to take a particular action; or
                           5-29

-------
   .  EPA approved revisions to State water quality standards
   where the revisions Included the substantive content of a
   previous promulgation.

In such a situation, the Regional Offices should prepare the
notice of withdrawal for the Administrator's signature and the
action memorandum.  The documents should be forwarded to the
Deputy Assistant Administrator.
                        5-30

-------
                                CHAPTER 6

                         LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 Introduction

    A.  Purpose

       The purpose of this chapter is  to describe an  optional  procedure
    for developing alternative subplans or strategies for pollution  abate-
    ment for entire planning areas.  This procedure consists  of breaking
    the planning area into a series  of units  corresponding to various
    land uses, and calculating the pollutant  loading  (from all  sources)
    associated with the land use configuration.   Alternative  abatement
    measures can be devised by changing the mix  of land uses  and land
    management practices associated  with such uses.  This will  also
    enable tradeoffs between structural solutions (e.g.,  treatment facil-
    ities) and nonstructural solutions (e.g., alternative land  uses),
    thus increasing the flexibility  in the choice of  methods  to achieve
    water quality standards.  Analysis of abatement strategies  on an
    areal basis provides a focal point for developing particular point
    and nonpoint source abatement measures for various land areas within
    the planning area.

       The areal approach to development of abatement measures  is also
    useful as a means of relating possible control strategies to other
    planning activities which can affect land use decisions.   Since water
    quality is one of a series of economic, social, and environmental
    objectives which may be considered when making land use decisions,
    the planning agency should be fully aware of planning and implementa-
    tion programs designed to achieve  these and  other objectives of  the
    area.  Of particular importance  are planning efforts  which  may be
    ongoing during the development of  the plan.   This could include  land
    use, coastal zone management, and  air quality maintenance planning.
    The planning agency must work closely with agencies responsible  for
    other planning and implementation  programs to ensure  that plans are
    compatible and that the implementation of other plans and programs
    does not have an adverse impact  on carrying  out the plan.

    B.  Pertinent Authorizations

       Section 201 (c) authorizes, to the extent  practicable,  the "control
    or  treatment of all point and nonpoint sources of pollution	"
    This implies a need for considering land  use controls and land manage-
    ment practices as a means for nonpoint source control.

       Section 208(b)(2)(C)(ii) provides that the areawide waste treatment
    management plan include "the establishment of a regulatory  program to
    regulate the location, modification, and  construction of  any facilities
                                 6-1

-------
within such area whki. ma.y result in any discharge in such area	"
This provides authority for the management agency(s) to regulate
location of new pollutant dischargers by determining the location of
municipal treatment facilities, by seeking control of other pollutant
sources, and by seeking appropriate changes in land use plans and
controls from the ddencles possessing land use jurisdiction in the
area.  The term "racilru'es" in the above citation includes any
controllable sou^.e uf- pollutants, the regulation of which contributes
to attaining water quality standards.

   More explicit authority for the plan to consider land use in the
area is provided in Section 208(b)(2)(F-H) which states that the plan
will set forth procedures and methods including "land use requirements"
to control to the extent feasible certain nonpoint sources of pollu-
tion.  The term 'land .jse requirements" in Section 208(b)(2)(F-H)
includes those land .;.,e controls (legally permitted uses) and those
land management rcgula^'ons (regulation of activities conducted on
land) which contribute to the attainment of water quality standards.

C. Relationship witn Existing Land Use Plans

   Throughout the process of incorporating land use considerations
into the plan, primary reliance should be placed on utilizing
existing land use plans, projections, and controls, although it will
be necessary in some cases to identify necessary revisions to incorporate
changes responsive to water quality objectives.  Since it is unlikely
that the planning agency will have the authority to enact or implement
changes in land use controls, it is essential  that the planning agency
work closely with Those government agencies possessing legal author-
ity for land use pl^n^ng and control.  This will be necessary to
assure that the vanaciemknt agency(s) has the authority to implement
the plan.

   It is also possible that some jurisdictions within the area will
not have land us;- plans, projections, and/or controls.  In this case,
the planning agency should work with the appropriate jurisdictions
to gather enough information about the area so that current and future
development patttiiM^, densities, and policies can be identified.  If
it is determined that revisions in these patterns, densities, and poli-
cies are nere$5,a-y ••:, achieve water quality standards in a cost-effective
manner, the plannino d'^enoy must work closely with the appropriate
jurisdictions po:^-\i»iq legal authority to enact and implement such
revisions.

   The major ouipjt -.
-------
6.2 Develop Area Subplans through  Land Use Analysis

    A. Inputs

       1.  Haste Load Projections  by Land Area

          Abatement strategies for land units within  the  planning  area
       should be designed to reduce existing  and  projected  waste loads  in
       the area to an acceptable  level.  The  population,  employment,  land
       use, and waste load projections developed  as part  of element  (c)
       of the State WQM Plan should be used as the  basis  for developing
       the abatement strategies.

       2.  Display of Haste Load Projections

          In order to develop abatement strategies, it  may  prove useful,
       especially to elicit public reaction,  to display existing and
       projected waste!oads to show their special configuration.   This
       could be done on  maps used  to develop  land use projections.   Rather
       than using a single map, it might be appropriate to  use  a series
       of maps so that point sources,  nonpoint sources, and various
       pollutant parameters can be clearly identified.

       3.  Detailed Projection of  Waste!oads

          Where land use and wasteload projections developed for element (c
       do not provide sufficient  information  to enable  design of abate-
       ment alternatives, the following land  use  and  environmental factors
       may be useful in  developing a more detailed breakdown of wasteload
       information:

          a. Topographic and soil  series classifications;

          b. Bodies of water and  related lands that would be beneficially
             or adversely affected by  a change in water quality;

          c. Water supply, treatment,  and distribution  systems;

          d. Existing waste treatment  and collection  systems, including
             interim facilities and major urban storm drainage  facilities;

          e. Solid waste disposal  sites;

          f. Areas presently served by septic tanks and areas suitable
             for septic  tanks at  specified densities;
                                    6-3

-------
      d.  Efiviyonnientally sensitive  areas:

         - Aquifers and aquifer recharge  areas;
         - Marshland and wetlands;
         - Drainageways and stream  buffers;
         - Flood plains;
         - Forests  and woodlands;
         - Erodable and/or poorly drained  soils;
         - Steep slopes;
         - Shorelands.

      However,  before collecting additional  land  use  and  environmental
   information, it  is important to  understand  how the information  can
   be used to relate land use and environmental factors to  water quality.
   (A discussion of wasteload estimation  and prediction techniques is
   found  in Chapters 7 and 8.)

B.  Develop Alternative Abatement Strategies

   1. Analyze Alternative Land Use  Controls  and Practices

      Land use controls and practices should be analyzed  to determine
   those  which would be most cost efficient  in reducing pollutant
   loadings, based  on the specific  water  quality  problems in the area.
   For example, if  sediment is a primary  problem, special considera-
   tion should be given to controls such  as  grading regulations,
   construction ordinances, and sediment  and soil erosion control
   ordinances.

      Following is  a list of major  land use  controls  and  practices
   that should be considered as possible  measures for implementing
   pollution control in a planning  area.   Other ordinances, regula-
   tions, and policies which may have a direct or indirect  impact  on
   water  quality should also be assessed:

      - Zoning;
      - Flood plain zoning and regulations;
      - Environmental performance zoning;
      - Subdivision regulations;
      - Planned unit development regulations;
      - Buffer zones;
      - Conservation and scenic easements;
      - Density bonuses;
      - Housing codes;
      - Building codes;
      - Construction permits;
      - Development permits;
      - Transferable development rights;
                                6-4

-------
   - Hillside development regulations;
   - Drainage regulations;
   - Grading regulations;
   - Soil erosion and sediment control ordinances;
   - Solid waste control ordinances;
   - Septic tank ordinances;
   - Taxation policies;
   - Public works policies;
   - Public investment policies;
   - Land conservation policies;
   - Discharge permits.

   Land use controls and practices should be reviewed and analyzed
as early as possible in the planning process to ensure their feasi-
bility in plan implementation especially with respect to nonpoint
source control.  When evaluating land use controls and practices
for the area, the planning agency should be cognizant of the general
authority and requirements for land use provided under state and local
environmental, conservation, and land use planning programs.  Addition-
ally, the agency should survey existing State enabling laws relating
to land use and identify necessary or desirable statutory changes.
This will help ensure that the plan can be implemented with proper
legal authority.  Institutional structures for implementing the
controls are discussed in Chapter 9.

   Since land use controls and practices are used to achieve a
variety of objectives, the following factors should be considered
when conducting the analysis:

   a. Implementation capability.  Careful consideration should
   be given to the feasibility of land use controls and their
   relationship to existing and proposed institutional and
   financial arrangements.

   b. Consistency with other programs.  To the extent that it is
   practical, the land_use controls should be consistent with
   other programs, policies, and plans such as those related to
   transportation, water supply, capital improvements, air quality,
   etc.

   c. Public acceptance.  Since controls that are unacceptable
   to the public are unlikely to be implemented, it is essential
   that serious consideration be given to the public's viewpoint.
   Appropriate public participation measures are discussed in
   Chapter 4.
                           6-5

-------
   2. Develop Alternative Subplans

      Alternative subplans for all sources should be developed, based
   on the analysis of land use controls and practices and specific
   point and nonpoint source controls for each land unit considered
   in the analysis.  Information on point and nonpoint source abate-
   ment techniques is found in Chapters 7 and 8.

   3. Display Wasteloads for Subplan

      The waste loadings for each subplan should  be displayed to
   show their alternative spacial configuration.   (This step completes
   the development of alternative area subplans (Chapter 3.6.E).)
   A list of the land use controls and practices  needed to implement
   a given subplan should accompany the display.   This list as well
   as the display can be used in the environmental  assessment and
   plan selection process.

C. Refine Subplans

   After the various subplans have been developed,  further refinements
should be considered in screening alternative subplans and combining
subplans into alternative areawide plans.  The following questions
may prove useful in suggesting some final refinements:

   1. Is this the optimum development pattern for water quality?

   2. Could the number and magnitude of discharges  be reduced if
   the development pattern was changed?

   3. Will the location of discharges have an adverse impact on water
   quality?

   4. Will the timing of discharges have an adverse impact on water
   quality?

   5. Would the implementation of additional land use controls reduce
   overall investments?
                              6-6

-------
                                  CHAPTER 7

                  NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT CONSHJF fV-' IONS
7.1  Introduction

     Chapter 3 presents a framework for the systematic evaluation  of all
sources of pollution and selection of alternative plat'-, for the area.   The
control plans must identify nonpoint sources, evaluate thr-iy  impact on
water quality, and delineate measures for their cont.r* I.

     Nonpoint sources, while not defined in the Act,  are.  by  inference,
the accumulated pollutants in the stream, diffuse runofft  seepage, and
percolation contributing to the degradation of the qinHty of surface and
ground waters*.  They include the natural sources (sepps,  springs, etc.)
and millions of small point sources that presently are not covered by
effluent permits under the National Pollution Dischprnp nimirmtion System.

     Provisions for control of nonpoint sources from  .iqr icultural, silvi-
cultural, mining, construction and urban/suburban area must be included in
the development of a State WQM Plan.  Land and subsurface  Disposal of
residual wastes, salt water intrusion, and hydrographir modification con-
tributing to water quality degradation must also bp i ^^iciered.

7.2  Statutory Requirements and EPA Policy

     A.  Statute

         Section 208(b)(2)(c)(i) states that a 208 plan shall include estab-
     lishment of a regulatory program to "implement the waste treatment
     management requirements of Sec. 201(c)," which calls  ft.-!' control  of  all
     point and nonpoint sources of pollution.

         Section 208(b)(2)(F-I) states that a plan prepared under  the
     areawide waste treatment management planning process  shall include:

         "A process to (i) identify, if appropriate,,  .(nonpoint
         sources of pollution)..and (ii) set forth procedures and
         methods (including land use requirements) to ..'oMTol to
         the extent feasible such sources."
*This definition of nonpoint sources is for purposes of explaining how
the States could develop Best Management Practices for all  runoff sources
of pollution not covered by the NPDES program.   This definition  is not
intended to reflect EPA's possible response to  the court order required
by Judge Flannery's decision on NRDC v. Train,  Civil Art ion No,  1629,
Federal District Court for the District of Columbia.
                                     7-1

-------
Finally, Sections 208(b)(2)(J)  and (K)  provide that a  plan  shall
include:

    "A process to control  the disposition  of all  residual waste
    generated in such area which could  affect water quality,"
    and

    "A process to control  disposal of pollutants  on land or in
    subsurface excavations within such  area to protect ground
    and surface water quality;"

B.  EPA Policy on Implementing  the Statutory Requirements

    The requirement for a  regulatory program over all  point and
nonpoint sources places a  clear responsibility on areas developing
State WQM Plans to establish regulation of nonpoint sources.   It
is EPA policy that the type of  regulation  appropriate  for each
nonpoint source category should be established by the  State.
Designated 208 planning agencies may also  define  nonpoint source
regulatory measures for approval by the State.

    For each nonpoint source problem category, "Best Management
Practices" (BMP) should be defined and  implemented through
appropriate regulation.  The term "Best Management Practice" refers
to a practice, or combination of practices, that  is determined by a  State
(or designated areawide planning agency) after problem assessment, exam-
ination of alternative practices, and appropriate public participation
to be the most effective,  practicable (including  technological, economic,
and institutional considerations) means of preventing  or reducing the
amount of pollution generated by nonpoint  sources to a level compatible
with water quality goals.

C.  General Criteria for Choosing BMP

    The definition of BMP  states several criteria or tests  which  should
be applied by the State in choosing Best Management Practices  (BMP):

        -  a BMP should manage  "pollution  generated by
           nonpoint sources"

        -  a BMP should achieve water quality "compatible
           with water quality goals"

        -  a BMP should be "most effective in preventing
           or reducing the amount of pollution generated"

        -  a BMP should be "practicable"
                                7-?

-------
1.  A BMP should manage "pollution generated by nonpoint sources"

    Water pollution sources can be functionally categorized in
accordance with man's activities.  This type of categorization has  been
used in Sections 208 and 304(e), P.L.  92-500, in connection with
nonpoint sources.  It is considered to be applicable to the selection
of BMP to prevent or reduce pollution  from these sources.   As  a mini-
mum, the State should consider the following activity categories in
its establishment of BMP for nonpoint  sources:

             1.  Agricultural Activities
             2.  Silviculture! Activities
             3.  Mining Activities
             4.  Construction Activities
             5.  Urban Runoff
             6.  Hydro!ogic Modifications
             7.  Sources Affecting Ground Water
             8.  Residual  Wastes Disposal

    The interrelation of the activities outlined above should  be
considered in the selection of BMP.  It may be advantageous to
further categorize the nonpoint sources based on similar control
aspects.  Utilization of sub-categorization could reduce the
amount of duplication in the selection of BMP.   Examples of such
subcategorizations are: (1) by similar physical conditions,
e.g., soils, slope, precipitation patterns; (2) by similar
activities, e.g., soil disturbance --  construction, strip  mining,
land development; (3) by site-specific characteristics, e.g.,  all
activities in a single area of like conditions; and (4) by
pollutant to be controlled, e.g., sediments, acidity/alkalinity,
oxygen demanding materials.  Further guidance on establishing
categories is found in Chapter 7.4.

2.  A BMP should achieve water quality "compatible with water
    quality goals"

    Through analysis of existing water quality data and of newly
acquired data where necessary, target  levels of abatement  should
be chosen for each planning area in the State.   The BMP should be
selected in terms of meeting these targets.  The pollutants that
must be controlled should  be determined.  While BMP will normally
prevent or reduce several  pollutants,  the final selection  of BMP
should be related to those pollutants  that must be controlled  to
achieve water quality goals.
                            7-3

-------
3.  A BMP should be "most effective in preventing or reducing                 ^1
    the amount of pollution generated"

    Through water quality analysis, the State should select  abate-
ment levels against which the effectiveness  of the BMP  can be
related.  These levels (Ibs/tons per day/week/month/year, Ibs/tons
per acre/square mile/basin, etc.) should be  related to  the reduction
of pollutants and achievement of water quality goals.   The effec-
tiveness of the BMP in reducing pollutants should be fully evaluated            «
in terms of the selected abatement levels.

    The reduction or elimination of pollutants in the runoff,
seepage, and percolation from nonpoint sources can materially
contribute to the protection of the quality  of the Nation's  waters.             *
In general, there are two options for accomplishing the needed
reductions and/or eliminations, namely; (1)  collection  and treat-
ment of the pollutants and, (2) reduction and/or prevention  of  the
formation, runoff, seepage, and percolation  of the pollutants.

    Collection and treatment of the runoff,  seepage and percolation
of pollutants from nonpoint sources may be necessary in some cases.
However, the collection and treatment of pollutants from nonpoint
sources is generally complex and expensive.   Because of this,
collection and treatment is considered to be a final  measure to
be utilized where other preventive measures  will  not reach the
necessary water quality protection goals.

    The BMP must be technically capable of preventing or reducing
the runoff, seepage, or percolation of pollutants.  First consid-
eration should be given to those preventive  techniques  that  have
been shown to be effective during their oast use.  New  and innovative
techniques should be fully analyzed as to their technical capability
of preventing or reducing pollutants prior to their consideration for
incorporation into the BMP.

    While one practice (measure) may be adequate in some cases, BMPs
will generally consist of a combination of practices.   The various
alternatives should be fully evaluated.  In  choosing among the  alter-
natives, the BMP that most effectively achieves the desired  level of
water pollution control should be chosen.  If more than one  alterna-
tive will achieve the level of effectiveness necessary  to reach
water quality goals, the least costly alternative should be  chosen.
                             7-4

-------
4.  A BMP should be "practicable"

    Implementation of the BMP should be feasible from not only
the technical standpoint but also from the financial, legal,  and
institutional standpoint.  The practicality of securing early
implementation should be evaluated in the selection of the BMP.

    The primary goal of BMPs is the protection of water quality
However, expensive preventive techniques that will result in
little water quality benefits should be avoided.  The BMP must
be capable of being implemented within the financial  capability  of
the area, and of the owners or operators of the various sources.
Side benefits as well as the installation and operational costs
should be included in the evaluation.  The final selection of the
BMP should take into consideration both the costs of the preventive
techniques and the economic benefits (water quality or otherwise)
to society that will result from their use.

    A number of the preventive techniques that may be incorporated
in the BMP are already in wideapread use within various source
categories.  These techniques should receive first consideration
in the selection of the BMP.  Techniques that will require opera-
tional changes in the source management should be avoided unless
they are necessary for water quality protection.  Insofar as  is
possible, the initial implementation of the BMP should be accomplished
with the existing legal and institutional framework of the State.
However, if additional legal authority is needed, steps should be
taken at an early date to secure the needed authority.

    Full consideration should be given to the total effect
on the environment in the selection of the BMP for water pollution
control.  A BMP applied to prevent or reduce water pollution
should not result in adverse effects on the other portions of the
environment such as the creation of air pollution or solid waste
disposal problems.  Adverse effects on other portions of the  environ-
ment are not only undesirable but also will delay the implementation
of a BMP to control water pollution.
                            7-5

-------
7.3  Planning Methods for Selection  of Best  Management  Practices

     Best Management Practices  should  be  related  to water  quality  protection
needs.   In order to choose management  practices,  it is  important to establish
(1) how much of a water quality problem exists,  (2) to  what extent the problem
is attributable to particular categories  of  nonpoint  source generating
activities, (3) how much reduction of  pollution  from  these activities might be
needed, (4) what it might cost  to achieve such reduction,  and  (5)  through
what legal, financial, and institutional  mechanisms the practices  might  be
implemented.  In order to answer these questions,  it  is helpful to investi-
gate them in a systematic manner. The following  guidance  is designed to help
answer these questions, based on the planning process framework established
in Chapter 3.

7.4  Technical Planning

     A.  Introduction

         The purpose of this phase of  nonpoint source planning is  to answer
     the question of how much reduction of pollution  is needed for particular
     nonpoint source activities in order  to  protect water  quality, and
     establish the most cost-effective measure for accomplishing this.   There
     are many conceivable approaches for  relating  nonpoint source  control
     needs to water quality. The level of sophistication  of planning should
     be chosen in the light of  data  availability  and  the need  for  analyses in
     order to make a reasonable argument  that particular BMPs  are  needed and
     will accomplish their purpose.  It should be  recognized that  relating
     in-stream water quality to levels of pollution generation from cate-
     gories of nonpoint source  activity is a difficult  analysis.   NeverthelesSj
     this analysis should be carried out  in  order to  provide the best infor-
     mation possible for establishing  the needed  level  of  abatement of various
     nonpoint sources.  Once abatement levels are  established  for  particular
     nonpoint source activities, it  is possible  to rely on existing infor-
     mation on costs and abatement effectiveness  of alternative management
     practices.
                                     7-6

-------
B.  Inputs

    1.  Water Quality Analysis

        The wate'r quality analysis described in Chapter 3 should provide
    the following inputs to nonpoint source planning:

        -  assessment of nonpoint sources:

           The assessment should indicate whether in-stream problems
           exist related to runoff and what categories of runoff
           pollution are suspected of causing problems.

        -  segment classification:

           Planning for nonpoint sources is only required in relation
           to water quality needs.  Thus nonpoint source planning should
           be undertaken in water quality limited segments, including
           segments classified as water quality limited as part of.an
           anti-degradation policy.

        -  existing/projected waste!oads:

           Information on existing/projected loads from nonpoint
           sources* should be used in the process of classifying
The nonpoint sources are the sources contributing to water quality
degradation where that degradation cannot be accounted for by the
known point sources.  This applies from the largest basin to the
smallest subbasin.  The nonpoint source load can be expressed as
follows:
    N = (Q+S+D) - (P+I)

Where:

    N = Quantity (mass) of nonpoint source pollutants in terms
        of a given parameter, under a given design flow condition
    Q = Quantity of pollutants in the water leaving the test area
    S = Quantity of settlement and precipitation of pollutants
    D = Quantity of decay of nonconservative pollutants
    P = Quantity of pollutants discharged by point sources
        (assumed to be constant under a given design flow condition)
    I = Quantity of pollutants in the water entering the test area
                                7-7

-------
       segments.  However, since information on  existing  nonpoint
       source loads .is likely to be scanty,  this information  should
       be further developed in order to choose nonpoint source
       management practices.

    -  maximum allowable loads:

       In water quality limited segments,  a  gross  allotment for
       each parameter of pollution should  be made  (under  design
       flow conditions) for nonpoint sources. This  allotment
       provides the basis for establishing pollution reduction
       levels for various nonpoint source  categories.

2.  Priorities

    The level of detail of plan elements should  be established  early
in the planning process.  For plan elements  which  cannot  be im-
plemented in the next five years, an assessment  can  be undertaken
(see Ch. 3.3.C).  In the case of nonpoint  sources  a  number of factors
should be considered in determining whether  controls can  be imple-
mented in the near future.

    First, the water quality problem that  the controls would  seek
to alleviate should be physically reversible. Problems of benthic
deposits (classified as nonpoint sources)  may or may not  be easily
reversible.  Natural levels of siltation and stream  bank  erosion
may not be controllable.

    Second, to be controlled in the near future, the receiving
water should have a potentially fast recovery rate.   Examples
might be impoundments or lakes exhibiting  eutrophication  due
to nutrients from nonpoint sources or estuaries  where shellfish
production is limited by toxics or siltation from nonpoint sources.

    Third, there should be public support  for solving the particu-
lar problem.  The prospects for public support are probably greatest
where a particular problem impairs beneficial uses such as water
supply, recreation, and fish and wildlife  habitat.  Public support
also entails financial support for capital-intensive control  measures,
There should be a reasonable prospect of obtaining financial  support
for the measures; however, development of  management practices  should
not be precluded by lack of specific sources of  funding for such
measures.
I
                            7-8

-------
              3.   Designation of  Planning Agencies

                  It  is  possible  that many agencies will be involved in nonpoint
              source  planning and implementation.  These agencies should be
              identified in the State/EPA Agreement (S130.ll).  As explained in
              Chapter 2, it is advisable for one agency to develop the water
              quality analysis and constraints for particular areas of a State.
              However the  responsibility for developing alternative abatement
              measures may be divided among many agencies.  In order to make
              decisions  concerning the divisions of planning and implementation
              responsibilities, it may be helpful to initiate management analysis
              (see Chapter 7.5) in order to identify agencies and levels of
              government having particular expertise in nonpoint source management.

»         C.   Approach for Relating Mater Quality Constraints to Abatement Measures

              1.   Area Approach

                  As.explained in Chapter 3, where there are complex interactions
              between activities  that generate nonpoint sources and point sources,
              it  may  be  appropriate to analyze the problems of particular land
              areas within a planning area, develop a mass balance for each of the
              pollutants,  and attempt to choose the optimal level of abatement
              for all  these sources.  For example, this approach may be advisable
              where a number of sources contribute to a given problem - e.g., storm
              water and  municipal  treatment effluents contributing to high fecal
              coliform counts.  The control needs for storm water should be chosen
              in  conjunction with those for municipal plants.  This might vary from
              one urban  area to another.  The problem may be very complex and the
              solutions  potentially very costly.  Careful analysis of the tradeoffs
              is  warranted in establishing BMPs in such cases.

              2.   Category Approach

                  It  is  possible  that particular pollution problems such as
              sediment are attributable to certain activities having well defined
              geographic boundaries.  If the total problem can be quantified, it
              should  be  possible  to divide the total into manageable parts and
              devise  abatement measures for 'each part.  For example, if the
              sediment problem can be sufficiently well identified so that an
              overall  annual loading of sediment can be established for a basin,
              this level can be divided into a series of targets for particular
              activities through  a variety of allocation techniques.  This allows
                                          7-9

-------
planning efforts to focus on particular problems  one  at a  time.
Another example of the category approach would  be in  the case  of
new or potential nonpoint source problems.   Since they are diffi-
cult to quantify and predict, it is not feasible  to establish
tradeoffs between different new sources.  Instead each activity
could be planned for independently, with the goal of  determining
highest feasible abatement levels for each  activity.

    a. Establish Planning Categories

       Under either the area approach or the category approach,
    it is necessary to divide the nonpoint  source problem  into
    parts in order to devise management practices appropriate
    to each aspect of the problem.  In general  the following broad
    categories of nonpoint sources should be used in  establishing
    BMPs:

             .  agricultural activities
             .  siIvicultural activities
             .  mining activities
             .  construction activities
             .  urban runoff
             .  hydro!ogic modifications
             .  sources affecting groundwater
             .  residual  waste disposal

       1)  Existing and new sources

           For each category of nonpoint sources  in the area,  an
       operational definition of new and existing sources  should
       be established.  A new source would  be one that would cause  a
       major change in drainage.  A change  from agricultural to
       residential use with a resulting significant change in
       runoff could be considered new.  In  addition,  all new
       stormwater systems and hydrographic  modification after  a
       given date might be considered as "new".   Normal  changes
       in the conduct of a given activity such  as agriculture  should
       not be considered as creating a new  source. Rather the
       distinction should be based on major changes in topography
       and drainage that would tend to cause significant increases
       in nonpoint source pollution.  The purpose of  the distinction
       between new and existing sources is  twofold.  First, greater
       depth of planning detail may be appropriate in determining
       management practices for existing sources, which vary great-
       ly in their magnitude and controllability.  Secondly, since  it
       is not possible to anticipate the magnitude of future nonpoint
       source problems, the presumption should  be that once existing
       sources adopt controls needed to protect water quality, new
       sources should be required to adopt  the  best practices;  available
       for preventing future increases in pollution.   The  bes;t
                            7-10

-------
   practices for new sources will  in many cases prevent more
   pollution per dollar spent than best practices for existing
   sources, since there will be flexibility to prevent problems
   before they arise, rather than  attempting to control them
   after the fact.

   2)  Factors Which Could be the  Basis for Further Subcategorization

       The following are some of the factors that could be used
   to distinguish subcategories of each existing and new nonpoint
   source category:

   -  physical conditions:  e.g. soil, slope, rainfall, proximity
                            to streams, underlying geologic
                            structure, etc.

   -  activity:             e.g. surface disturbance, subsurface
                            disturbance, road construction, change
                            in ground cover, etc.

   -  site specific         e.g. a certain type of mining carried
      conditions:           out in a particular geographic area

b. Allocate Load Reductions to Each Category

   1)  Allocation Techniques

       As discussed in Chapter 3,  there are a number of ways of
   expressing the maximum allowable load of pollutants.  The
   allowable load may be expressed in units of mass/unit time,
   where time refers to a particular wet weather flow condition.
   The load may also be expressed  as mass/unit time where the
   time period is longer -- perhaps mass/year.  The following are
   some possible approaches for allocating this load to the
   eight general categories of nonpoint sources discussed
   previously:

   Qption 1.1 - proportional to area occupied by category:

       Under this approach, each major nonpoint source category
   would be allocated a permissable load in proportion to the
   area it occupied.  This approach would result in the same
   loading constraint per acre for all  categories.   This would
   be exceedingly difficult for the categories that generate
   relatively large quantities of  pollutants per unit area  to
   meet.
                        7-11

-------
Option 1.2 - proportional to area, with tolerance levels
             for each category:

    This approach would involve assigning each category a base
allowance of pollutant loading per acre according to the
uncontrollable or background loading expected from each
category.  The remaining amount of the maximum load could be
assigned in proportion to area occupied by the category.   This
approach has the merit of recognizing realistic limits of
load reduction for each category.

Option 2.1 - equal relative reduction:

    Rather than develop a mass per acre constraint for each
category, the information used in  determining the maximum
allowable load could provide an indication of the relative
reduction from the existing loading needed to meet the stand-
ards.  For example if the existing loading were twice the
loading that should be allowed, the relative reduction for
all sources should be 50% of whatever amount of pollution
each source or category of sources was causing.  This approach
would treat all polluters as equally responsible for the
cleanup burden whether their per acre contribution was large
or small.

Option 2.2 - equal relative reduction, with tolerance level
             for each category:

    By this approach each category would be allowed a given load
per acre based on background or uncontrollable factors.  An
equal relative reduction of the excess over the allowed amount
could be applied to all polluters.  The relative reduction
would be based on the aggregate reduction needed for the  entire
segment or basin.

Option 3.1 - best technology:

    This approach involves defining the load constraint for
each category on the basis of the  abatement efficiency of
the best techniques for abating pollution for each source
category.  These abatement levels  can be expressed in units
of mass/acre/time converted to units of mass/time in order
to determine whether the sum of the loads for all categories
would be compatible with the maximum allowable load.  Based
on the comparison between the abatement achievable with best
techniques and the allowable load, adjustments in the load
constraint for each category might be necessary.
                    7-12

-------
       To the extent that the allowable load would be assigned
   to existing sources, with little or no allowance for pollu-
   tion from new sources, it would be necessary to establish load-
   ing constraints for new sources on the basis of best technology.

       These allocation approaches could be used to divide the
   burden of meeting the maximum allowable load among the
   principal nonpoint source categories.  Within the eight categories
   mentioned, there are many possible subcategories representing
   different natural physical conditions and production activities.
   The allocation for the eight categories could be further
   divided into the subcategories.

c. Relationship Between Generation of Pollutants and Transport
   to Receiving Waters

   The portion of the allowable load assigned to each nonpoint
source category is the loading that would be generated by sources
in that category and transmitted to receiving waters.  Since part
of the load that is generated may be assimilated on the land as
it flows over or through land to the receiving water, the load
constraints referred to above apply to the combined generation and
transmission of a pollutant.  If the constraint is 10 TN/acre/yr
at the receiving waters and the rate of generation at the source
is reduced to 20 TN/acre/yr, with a transmission rate of 50% of
the amount generated at the site, the receiving water constraints
can be met.

d. Relationship Between Pollutant Parameters

   In order to simplify the process of establishing the management
practices to meet the load constraints for each pollutant and
for each category, it may be possible to focus on one or more
pollutant parameters as the principal constraints to be met.  For
example, in rural areas, the chemical analysis of sediment may be
fairly uniform over large areas.  Thus if appropriate controls
are determined for sediment, these controls will also have a
predictable effectiveness in reducing BOD, pesticides, phosphorus,
and other pollutants that are associated with sediment.  In
urban areas the relative proportion of sediment and other parameters
may also exhibit certain uniformities.
                        7-13

-------
0,   Develop Abatement Subplans

    1.   Area Approach

        Procedures for developing abatement  measures  for  each  part  of
    the planning area, for all  pollutant  sources  are  discussed in
    Chapter 6.   Procedures for  developing alternative controls for  each
    category are analogous to those described  below in regard  to the
    category approach.

    2.   Category Approach

        The following steps could be followed  in  order to determine how
    to meet the abatement levels  established for  each nonpoint source
    category.  These same steps could also be  followed in the  area
    approach to predict the costs and effectiveness of alternative
    abatement measures for all  nonpoint source categories within each
    part of the planning area.

        a. Estimate Existing Waste Loads  for each Category/Subcategory

           Once the total nonpoint source load of a given pollutant
        under given flow conditions has been established, it is  necess-
        ary to  evaluate the breakdown of  sources  of this  pollutant  load.

           The  runoff, seepage, and percolation of pollutants  from
        nonpoint sources is highly dependent on climatic, seasonal, and
        other variable events.   High rainfall, antecedent rainfalls,
        cropping patterns, street sweeping schedules, time of  travel  of
        runoff, scouring and re-entry of  pollutants,  etc., must  be
        considered in the evaluation.  While average  conditions  shed
        light on the general situation, an analysis based on high
        and/or  low runoff periods, covering  specific  climatic  events
        and seasonal periods, is  more likely to provide an accurate
        evaluation of the significance of each nonpoint source.

           Data from sources such as building  inspection  offices, soil
        and water conservation  districts, and  planning agencies, should
        be evaluated to locate  many of the potential  nonpoint  sources
        of pollutants.  Soil survey maps, construction records,  urban
        sanitation records, and other such documents  can  provide much
        information for evaluation of the pollution potential  from
        nonpoint sources.  A number of agencies (USGS, water treatment
        plants, health units, etc.) maintain water quality records,
        which should provide information  on  the origin of nonpoint
        sources.
                                7-14

-------
                In general, there are two approaches  for tracing the origin
             of nonpoint source loadings:

                      .   generalized prediction and,
                      .   monitoring and sampling.

             Whichever approach or combination of  approaches  is  used, the
             objective should be to determine a reliable estimate of the
             load from each category of sources*.

                In general, sampling and monitoring may be needed where
             problems are so site-specific that prediction techniques cannot
             be used with confidence; otherwise prediction techniques may
             be preferable, especially those that  can be applied using
             existing information.  However, analysis of nonpoint source
             loading should only be carried out to the level  of  detail need-
             ed to choose best management practices.

                1)  Prediction of Nonpoint Source  Loads

                    Because monitoring and sampling for nonpoint source
                detection is costly and requires a long time  period  to
                construct an 'accurate set of data, it is advantageous to
                use nonpoint source load prediction techniques.   Although
                estimating the pollution generated from nonpoint sources
                is a difficult task, there are prediction techniques
                which can be used.  These techniques  enable prediction of
                nonpoint source load generation and transport based  on such
                measurable watershed parameters as soil, slope,  vegetative
                cover, land use, size of drainage  area, etc.   While  these
                techniques vary in their reliability, especially with regard
                to soluble pollutants and pollutants  subject  to  breakdown in
                the environment, they can be useful in choosing  best manage-
                ment practices.
*  The sum of the loads from each category snould enable construction  of
a materials balance showing loading for each pollutant to the stream and
origin (location of each category of sources) of the loads.   A materials
balance should be constructed in order to carry out the area  approach  as
described in Chapter 6.  The materials balance can be broken  down  to
whatever degree of detail is appropriate, depending on the accuracy  of the
method for estimating nonpoint source loading.
                                    7-15

-------
    Guidance on the applicability of these models and
the services available from federal  agencies for utilizing
the models is discussed in:

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.   Methods for
    Identifying and Evaluating the Nature  and Extent of
    Nonpoint Sources of Pollution, Report  No. EPA
    430/9-73-014.  Washington, D.C.   1973.  GPO, $2.45.

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Interim Report
    on Loading functions for Assessment of Water Pollution
    from Nonpoint Sources, November 1975,  Project 68-01-2293.
    Available from Water Planning Division (WH-554), EPA.

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.   Control of Water
    Pollution from Cropland, 1975, Report  No. EPA-600-2-75-026A.
    Available from Water Planning Division (WH-554), EPA.

    Additional guidance on prediction models and technqiues
for nonpoint sources is being developed by EPA and will be
available in subsequent guidance.

2)  Monitoring and Sampling to Identify Nonpoint Source Loads

    Monitoring and sampling should be undertaken in the short
term to identify nonpoint source loading in situations where
more accurate estimates are needed than can be obtained through
use of predictive models.  Secondly, monitoring and sampling
should be undertaken over a longer term to refine information
on nonpoint source loading and to serve as a management device
for assessing the progress made in attaining and maintaining
water quality through implementation of best management practices

    In the short term, monitoring may be undertaken, if nec-
essary, to estimate a single gross allotment (target abatement
level) for all nonpoint sources contributing to a given water
quality segment.  Also, monitoring of carefully selected
nonpoint sources may be undertaken as necessary to calibrate/
verify the analytical technique chosen to estimate the nature
and relative magnitude of the loads associated with each
nonpoint source category.  In particular,  monitoring may be
needed to verify or supplement loading estimates for such
sources as stormwater outfalls, waste lagoons, septic seepage
                     7-16
                                                                          4

-------
   areas, land fills, spray irrigation areas, and other signi-
   ficant sources that are difficult to estimate through pre-
   dictive techniques.

       Since it is not expected that nonpoint source load
   estimates can be verified in the relatively short timeframe
   of initial plan formulation, it may be desirable to initiate
   an ongoing monitoring program to be carried out in the plan
   implementation phase.

       The monitoring and sampling approach needed for nonpoint
   source identification and verification should determine a
   schedule of prioritized activities that will enable a given
   degree of identification of individual nonpoint sources at a
   given point.  For example, if the total nonpoint source load
   to the area is 1/3 of the total pollutant load for a given
   pollutant, the monitoring and sampling activities should be
   aimed at verifying a given percent of the nonpoint source
   load by a given date.  Instream water quality data which could
   be related'to specific nonpoint source sites should be evalu-
   ated in order to determine whether a given increment of waste
   detectable in the stream could be attributed to a given nonpoint
   source.

       The sum of the wasteloads that could be traced back to
   contributing sources should be a given percent of the total
   nonpoint source load that is chosen for the initial  monitoring
   and sampling coverage.  If the individual nonpoint sources
   that can be identified do not sum up to that given percent of
   the total nonpoint source load, then additional data should be
   collected.

b. Assess Effectiveness and Costs of Alternative Management
   Practices for each Category

   No single control method or set of control methods will be
appropriate for all types of nonpoint source problems.   Even
controls for a particular type of source will vary in effective-
ness according to geographic location.  The controls should be
tailored to local  conditions if they are to be effective.  Thus,
a thorough knowledge of both specific types of nonpoint sources
and local conditions is a prerequisite to the design of appro-
priate and effective controls.

   The second step in determining best management practices
for nonpoint sources is the identification of the technically
feasible structural controls and the practicable nonstructural
controls that are available for particular nonpoint source
problems.  Technically feasible control alternatives for
                        7-17

-------
particular types of nonpoint sources are categorized  and
discussed in the Best Management Practice papers,  attached
to these guidelines as Supplement No.  1.   It should be
emphasized that these control  alternatives are  cited  only
as examples, and that other viable alternatives,  if available,
should also be investigated and considered.

   For each nonpoint source category causing a  water  quality
problem, technically feasible control  options should  be  pre-
sented.  For each option, the cost of the control  and the
effectiveness of the control in abating different pollutants
(either at their source, or their yield to receiving  waters)
should be presented.  Determination of nonstructural  control
costs should be based upon the opportunity cost of the
control as discussed in Chapter 10.

   1)  Representative Data for Cost and Effectiveness

       Since the cost and effectiveness of nonpoint source
   controls depend on the exact circumstances in which the
   control is used, cost and effectiveness vary considerably.
   For purposes of evaluation, cost data should represent the
   typical or average situations.  This will assure that the
   cost and effectiveness of the control  are neither  over-
   estimated nor underestimated if the control  is being
   considered for widespread application.  Naturally, if the
   control is only applicable in very specific  cases, data
   should be representative of that specific situation.

   2)  Estimation of Cost and Effectiveness Information

       Because the precise cause-effect relationship  between
   application of a given control and achievement of  a given
   reduction of wastes to receiving waters is difficult  to
   define, calculation of cost-effectiveness may require pre-
   liminary estimation.

       Once a particular nonpoint source problem has  been
   identified, the approximate reduction of the source load
   that could be obtained through a given control  can be
   determined.  Since the cost of the control can generally
   be assessed with some degree of accuracy, the cost-effectiveness
   estimation enables an overall ordering of the most feasible
   controls for nonpoint sources.  To the extent that the esti-
   mates are difficult to make, some reasonably effective practice
   should be combined with a monitoring program to assess the
   effectiveness of the practice.
                       7-18

-------
c. Propose Best Management Practices for Each Category

   After identifying instream pollutant loading from nonpoint
sources and examining technically feasible nonpoint source
controls, the final step in nonpoint source technical planning
is determination of best management practices for existing and
new nonpoint sources.  This selection process should be based
on determining the cost effectiveness of alternative controls
for reducing existing and potential loading to a level  com-
patible with water quality goals.

   The process of selecting controls for existing and new
nonpoint sources is essentially the same in that cost-effectiveness
and implementation feasibility should be the criteria for choosing
controls.  However, for most new sources there are often more
options for highly effective management measures and these
higher levels of abatement (chosen in the establishment of
maximum allowable pollutant loads) should be considered in the
selection of best management practices in order to prevent or
minimize future pollutant increases.

   1)  Relationship with Management Program

       Selection of best management practices should be closely
   coordinated with the development of a management program
   to implement controls for point and nonpoint sources.  A
   management program should establish the following legal,
   financial, and technical support aspects of best management
   practices (see Ch. 7.5 for further discussion):

            Regulatory mechanisms, including legal authority
            to implement and enforce best management practices;

         .   Fiscal programs to provide incentives to adopt
            best management practices;

         .   Technical assistance and interagency coordination
            to help affected parties comply with regulatory
            programs.

   2)  Preliminary Screening of Nonpoint Source Control
       Options

       In order to compare nonpoint source control options, it
   is necessary to reduce the number of possible options for
   each category to those that are technically feasible, with
   adequate documentation of cost and effectiveness.  A reason-
   able number of control options for each significant non-
   point source category should be presented.
                        7-19

-------
                3)   Development of Alternative  Subplans

                    After control  options  for each  category  have  been
                developed, they should  be  combined  to  form alternative
                subplans.   Each subplan should  indicate the  cost  and
                effectiveness  of possible  BMPs  in meeting the target
                nonpoint source load  reduction  levels.

                    The following  information for each category of nonpoint
                sources should be  presented as  an input to the combined
                evaluation of  technical  and management plans:

                      .  Waste!oad characteristics  of  each alternative;

                      .  Total cost of  each alternative expressed as its
                         present value  of  capital and  operating costs for
                         the overall  alternative and subsystem components;

                      .  Reliability  of each alternative and subsystem
                         included  in  each  alternative;

                      .  Significant  environmental  effects of each alter-
                         native consistent with NEPA procedures,  including
                         a specific statement of future development impact;

                      .  Contribution of each alternative to other water-
                         related objectives of  the  planning  area.

7.5  Management Planning

     A.   Introduction

         The purpose of management planning is  to determine  the legal,
     financial, and institutional  means needed  to implement  best  management
     practices.  After proposed management practices can be  determined from
     a technical standpoint, it is necessary to examine their implementation
     feasibility and, if necessary, make adjustment to the originally pro-
     posed practices in order  to ensure that the selected practices are
     feasible from  a legal, financial,  and institutional standpoint.  The
     following management planning procedures are based on the framework
     for management planning described  in  Chapter 3.

     B.   Define Management Agency(s)  and Institutional Arrangements

         The first  step in management planning  should  be to  define the scope
     of legal authority, financial capacity, and institutional arrangements
     to manage nonpoint sources.
                                    7-20

-------
    1.   Legal  Authority

        Legal  authority to treat wastes from nonpoint sources or to
    regulate owners and operators of nonpoint sources according to
    the management practices proposed in the technical  phase of
    nonpoint source planning should be defined.

    2.   Financial  Capacity

        The level  of public and private expenditure to carry out the
    management practices and possible financial  programs to obtain
    the funds  should be identified.

    3.   Management Agency(s) and Institutional  Arrangements

        A general  description of the type of agency and interagency
    arrangements to carry out proposed practices should be described.

C.  Management Analysis

    1.   Legal  Analysis

        An analysis should be made of the existing legal basis for
    requiring  management of nonpoint sources within the planning area.
    The analysis should attempt to determine the adequacy of the exist-
    ing law, distinguishing the extent to which  authority to regulate
    nonpoint sources may exist, as opposed to the administrative
    effectiveness  in carrying out the law.  Wherever possible the
    proposed nonpoint source management practices should rely on
    existing general authority and seek to establish necessary
    implementing regulations and administrative  and enforcement
    capability.  The need for new legislation should also be iden-
    tified early in the planning process.

    2,   Financial  Analysis

        For each proposed management practice,  a tentative financial
    program should be developed.  This program should identify capital,
    operating, and administrative costs and sources of financing for
    the various cost elements.  The financial analysis should explore
    the possibility of relying on existing programs to finance parts
    or all of  the  costs for particular cost elements.

    3•   Institutional Analysis

        There  are  many existing agencies and programs concerned with'
    nonpoint source management.  An analysis should be made of the
    extent to  which these programs could incorporate the function of
    land management controls for water quality protection.  It is
                                 7-21

-------
possible that many existing programs could undertake part or all
of the responsibilities for implementing best management  practices.
Where uncertain authority exists for these agencies  and programs  to
undertake management projects or regulate nonpoint source owners
and operators, it may be possible to strengthen  the  authority of
these agencies or have the agencies administer a program in cooper-
ation with other agencies and levels of government that have the
requisite legal authority.  In other instances the legal  authority
may exist to implement management practices, but insufficient funds
may prevent an effective program.  In such cases some of the funding
sources suggested in Chapter 10 should be explored and expanded budgets
proposed for the agencies that otherwise could be effective in
implementing management practices.  A third deficiency of existing
agencies and programs may be lack of a coherent administrative
structure to relate water quality and other resource management
programs.  For example, many public works and land management pro-
grams have an impact on water quality; however,  water quality
protection may not be an explicit goal in these programs.  By slight
modification in the mission of these existing land and resource
management programs, it may be possible to develop effective water
quality management institutions.  However, it may still be necessary
to develop coordination mechanisms between the many institutions
having the potential to carry out water quality management.

    The following is a partial list of existing agencies  and levels
of government that may have the potential to carry out nonpoint
source management:
Agriculture


Silviculture


Mining


Construction
   Federal

Soil Conservation
     Service

Forest Service
Federal  Bureau of
     Mines

Dept. of Housing
 & Urban Dev.
Dept. of Trans.
    State

Dept. of Agriculture
                             Dept. of Natural
                                 Resources

                             Dept. of Mining
Dept. of Trans.
                                                       Regional
                                                     County/Local

                                                    Soil  Conservation
                                                        Districts
                                                    County/Municipal
                                                        Engineer
                                                    Municipal Bldg.
                                                        Inspector
                            7-22

-------
Urban Runoff
Hydrologic Modi-
   fication

Source Affecting
Ground Water

Residual Waste
  Disposal
Public Land/Re-
 source Mgmt.
 Activities
 Affecting
 Above Non-
 point Sources
   Federal

Dept. of Housing &
    Urban Dev.
(Flood Insurance
    Program)

Dept. of Army,
Corps, of Engineers
                          Regional
    State               County/Local

                       County Municipal
                            Engineer
                       Sanitary Sewage
                             Authority
                      State Dept. of Health  Local  Dept.  of Health
                                             Regional  County and
                                             Municipal Departments
                                                of Sanitation
Dept. of Interior
Bureau of Land Mgmt.
Bureau of Reclama-
     tion
Forest Service
National Park Serv.
Federal Power Comm.
Dept. of Army, Corps
    of Engineers
State Land Resource
   Managing Agencies
County, Local Parks
    Departments
                The analysis of existing programs having the potential  to implement
            nonpoint source management should lead to specific proposals  for organ-
            izations to implement the management practices developed  in the  technical
            phase of planning.   Depending on the results of this  analysis, the
            function of technical development of proposed best management practices
            may be delegated to an agency having particular expertise in  nonpoint
            source management.   Whatever agency has the responsibility  for technical
            development of BMPs, there should be close coordination between  the
            technical phase of BMP development and the selection  of management
            agencies to supervise BMP implementation.

        D.  Development of Alternative Management Plans

            1•   Propose Alternative Management Options

                For each category of sources and each major technical  alternative
            for BMP management, options to implement the BMP should be  proposed.
            These options should identify the source of legal  authority for the
            management practice (including proposed schedules  for enabling legis-
            lation, if necessary), a proposed financial program identifying
            existing or new sources of funding, and the agency(s) proposed to
                                        7-23

-------
provide technical  assistance, supervise, monitor,  and enforce  BMP
implementation.  In addition where many agencies  are proposed  for
different source categories, the management structure to  coordinate
these agencies and to integrate nonpoint source management  into
the overall  State  WQM Plan should be identified.

2.  Assessment of  Management Alternatives for Consistency with
    Technical Proposals

    Since technical BMP proposals may vary in their complexity,  it
is important to determine whether the agency proposed to  supervise
their implementation has the necessary manpower,  expertise,  and
financial resources to administer the particular  technical  proposal.

3.  Screen in Terms of Implementation Feasibility

    Before final selection of BMPs, the proposed  management  approach
for each category  of sources should be evaluated  according  to  the
criteria of implementation feasibility discussed  in Chapter  3.  The
following evaluation should be made for the BMPs  proposed for  each
category of sources:

       legal authority:  Is there adequate authority, or  an  adequate
       legislative proposal to acquire the authority called  for
       in Section  208(c)(2) of the Act and for the regulatory  program
       specified in Section 208(b)(2)(C) of the Act?

    .  financial capacity:  For public sector projects, are  there
       adequate funds or a specific legislative proposal  to  acquire
       such funds?  For BMP costs to be borne by  private  landowners,
       are the costs reasonable and affordable;  is adequate  provision
       made to phase implementation of the BMP according  to  the
       capacity of landowners to bear the costs?   For overall  program
       management, are there sufficient resources devoted to super-
       vision of the entire nonpoint source management effort, in
       addition to the separate administrative costs of each program
       element?

    .  institutional feasibility:  Is the management approach  practical
       in the sense of relying on available programs where  possible?
       Is the management approach administratively coherent, with
       adequate supervision of each program element and of  the program
       as a whole?  Is there broad public understanding and  acceptance
       for the management approach?

4.  BMP Selection
    The selection of BMPs should be undertaken as part of the overall
plan evaluation and selection process described in Chs. 13 and 14.
                            7-24

-------
                                CHAPTER 8

                       POINT SOURCE CONSIDERATIONS
8.1  Introduction

     Chapter 3 presents a framework for systematic evaluation and selection
of pollution control  strategies for all sources of pollutants.   This  chapter
describes technical  planning considerations for developing alternatives
abatement measures for point sources of pollution.  The point sources con-
sidered in this chapter are discharges from municipal  treatment plants,
combined sewer overflows, and industrial  waste effluents.   Disposal of
wastewater sludge, and wastewater reuse are also discussed.  Balanced
consideration of measures other than the traditional  capital  intensive
approaches of point source control  is stressed in this chapter.
Alternatives considered should encompass all  applicable structural  and
management measures  for preventing, abating,  reducing, storing, treating,
separating, recycling, reclaimina and disposing of municipal  and industrial
wastewater and combined sewer discharges.


8.2  Planning Approach for Point Sources

     A.  Inputs

         1.  Hater Quality Analysis

             --  problem assessment:

                 The problem assessment should indicate where planning is
             needed for existing point source problems.  A determination
             of planning needed to prevent future problems can  be made
             by evaluating projections of future population,  employment,
             land use, wasteloads.

             --  segment classification:

                 The segment classification should indicate the type  of
            'wasteload constraints  that will  be required of point source.
             Where waste load allocation is required,  it is important
             to choose a planning approach allowing consideration of
             tradeoffs between all  sources requiring load  allocation.

             --  maximum allowable  loads:

                 In Water Quality Limited segments, the maximum allowable
             load for pollutants provides the planning constraints  that
             should be met in developing abatement strategies.
                                   8-1

-------
         2.   Priorities

             Before developing  abatement  strategies  for  point sources,  it
         is  important to determine  the  level of  detail of  the outputs of
         these strategies.   If  the  abatement measures are  to be  imple-
         mented in the next  five years, all the  outputs  for point sources
         specified in Table  3.1 should  be developed  at a level of detail
         sufficient for  implementing  the  outputs.   (The  relationship
         between the facility plans outputs provided in  the State WQM Plan
         and further facility planning  is described  in Chapter 2).  Where
         the particular  element of  the  plan cannot  be implemented in the
         next five years, the level of  detail may consist  of a more
         general assessment  having  the  type of information indicated in
         Table 3.2

     B.   Choice of Methods  (and Level of  Detail) for Relating Water Quality
         Analysis to Development of Abatement Measures

         1.   Water Quality  Limited  Segments - Area Approach

             The area approach  to developing abatement measures  is described
         in  Chapter 3.  A detailed  procedure to  carry out  this approach,
         relating pollution  loads to  land use plans  and  policies is described
         in  Chapter 6.  It  is recommended that the area  approach be followed
         for developing  point source  subplans in Water Quality limited
         segments.  The  reason  for  this recommendation is  that the area
         approach encourages evaluation of alternative levels of abatement
         and alternative discharge  locations for point sources,  allowing
         the maximum flexibility in the waste load  allocation process.

         2.   Effluent Limited Segments

             The waste load  constrained in effluent  limited segments would
         be  established  in  the  effluent guidelines  for the particular point
         source category.

     C.   Development of  Abatement Plans

         The following sections (Chapter  8.3-8.6) describe procedures for
     developing alternative  abatement plans for  municipal, private waste-
     water combined sewer,  and  industrial  point  sources.   These  alternatives
     should  be combined  into alternative  area subplans for point sources as
     described in Section 8.7.

8.3  Municipal Wastewater Facilities

     A.   Introduction

         Planning of municipal  facilities within an  area should  provide for
     (1) cost-effective, environmentally  sound,  and  implementable treatment
                                   8-2

-------
works to meet the present needs of the area and (2) a general program
to phase facilities development to meet future needs as projected in
an overall land use plan.  Balanced evaluation of nonpoint source
abatement and prevention measures as well as point source measures
should precede final selection of the treatment works.  Treatment
works must meet the applicable requirements of Sections 201(g), 301,
and 302 of the Act.  As a minimum, facilities plans must provide
for application, by 1983, of the best practicable waste treatment
technology (BPWTT).  Where necessary to meet wasteload allocation
constraints consistent with water quality standards, plans must
provide for measures to further reduce pollutants.  The determina-
tion of BPWTT, or measures providing for higher treatment levels if
needed, is based upon evaluation of technologies included under each
of the following waste management techniques:

    a.  treatment (biological or physical-chemical) and
        discharge to receiving waters;

    b.  treatment and reuse;

    c.  land application or land utilization

    Comparision of the above techniques and determination of BPWTT for
a specific case should include considerations for management of nutri-
ents in wastewater and sludges, development of integrated (solid, liq-
uid, and thermal) waste facilities, and enhancement of recreation and
open space opportunities.

    This section covers major aspects of the municipal wastewater
facilities planning presented in the EPA document entitled "Guidance
for Facilities Planning".

B.  Delineate Service Area

    Service areas for municipal waste treatment facilities should
be delineated based on the population, economic, land use, and
waste load projections discussed in Chapter 3.  In general, a
treatment service area includes the sewered areas tributary to an
integrated waste treatment system plus those additional portions
of watersheds likely to be connected over the planning period.

    The delineations should outline, on at least a preliminary
basis, geographic areas sufficient to permit cost-effectiveness
analyses of alternatives, including waste treatment methods and
ultimate disposal options for sludge and treated effluents.  Also,
each of the areas should be of sufficient size to consider cost
savings, management advantages, or environmental gains resulting
from regionalization.  Given these concepts, service areas for
waste treatment systems and ultimate sludge disposal or utilization
are not necessarily the same.  For example, sludge from two (or more)
                            8-3

-------
separate treatment service areas could be land-filled or used as a
soil-conditioner at a common site;  in this case,  the sludge disposal
service area would include the separate treatment service areas.

    In smaller SMS.As (less than 100,000), or those with few political
entities or public bodies having jurisdiction over sewage disposal,
the service areas should encompass  either the entire SMSA or the core
city plus contiguous urban places.   The fact that service areas are
delineated does not necessarily imply that all  land within a service
area should, be serviced by municipal sewage collection and treatment
systems.  In fact, in iriany less densely populated areas, or Darts of
urbanized areas there are economic  and environmental advantages to on
site disposal  of waste.  The service area delineation merely represents
a potential area in which to investigate possible municipal treatment
systems.

    In larger urban areas, single facilities plan coverage of the
entire area may be unattainable or  inappropriate  for institutional,
geographic, or other reasons.  Service areas should still encompass
contiguous waste treatment systems  when these conditions occur::  1)
such systems may require major new  or expanded treatment plants, sludge
disposal or effluent disposal facilities; and,  2) system interconnection
or joint facilities would be feasible alternatives.

    Recognizing the considerations  discussed above, service area
boundaries for non urban areas should encompass the entire com--
munity including those areas subject to future urban development.
Where cost savings or other advantages might result from waste
treatment system interconnect joint effluent or sludge disposal faci-
lities, or collective management for two or more  nearby communities,
the service area should encomoass the community group.  If a community
is isolated sufficiently to preclude regionalization, the service
area should be confine/i to that community.

    The delineated service areas should be outlined on maps to the
same scale as those used in the projected population and land-use
presentation (Chs. 3 and 6).

C•  Inventory Existjnq_Conditions and Determine Existing Flows

    The existing waste treatment systems must be accurately assessed
to establish a basis for planning any systems modifications.  Where
available, the Phase 3 Plans will provide essential information on
municipal point sources, waste loads, wastewater flows, and water
quality within the planning area.  Data from permits would be an
additional source of information.  At the start of planning, this data
should be reviewed and supplemented as necessary.  The assessment of
each existing waste treatment system should include a performance
evaluation of the treatment plant,  including operating problems and
personnel, and samn'iirto and maintenance program.   Data on current
                             8-4

-------
performance of many treatment facilities will  be available from
State water quality agencies as a result of their programs involving
operations and maintenance visits and consultations.   An infiltration/
inflow analysis should also be made on a preliminary basis to deter-
mine whether excessive infiltration or inflow exists and, on a pre-
liminary basis, costs of any corrective measures required.  Should
the analysis determine the existence of excessive infiltration/inflow,
a more detailed sewer system evaluation survey should be made to
specifically define problems and determine types and costs of correc-
tive measures.  A State WQM planning grant cannot be used for the
detailed sewer evaluation survey; however, grant assistance may be
obtained under a construction grant (40 CFR 35, Subpart E).  To
assure satisfactory management of residual wastes, an inventory of
sludge utilization and disposal should also be conducted.

D.  Estimate Future Waste Loads and Flows

    To provide a basis for planning and preliminary design of
facilities, future variations of waste loads and the flows over the
planning period must be forecast.  As described in Chapter 3, forecasts
must bebasedon economic and demographic growth trends for the
planning area and should be based upon evaluation of land use plans,
and any growth contraints imposed by air quality implementation
plans, zoning restrictions or permit conditions.  The effects of
selected flow and waste reduction measures, including sewer system
rehabilitation to correct infiltration/inflow, should also be
reflected in the flow forecasts to permit subsequent calculation of
waste treatment system cost reductions.

    1.  Land Use and Development

        Wastewater load and flow projections should conform to the
    time phased development shown on the land use projections that
    are proposed as being compatible with water quality goals.  (See
    Chapter 3 and 6).  To avoid changes in the growth pattern from
    that projected in the land use plan, schedules of hookups should
    be developed through a regulatory program.  (See Chapter 9).

    2.  Flow and Waste Load Forecasts

        The expected economic and population growth patterns for
    the planning area, as projected in the land use plan, should
    be translated into estimates of wastewater flows and waste loads,
    with a realistic allowance for unpreventable infiltration.  The
    estimated future changes in flows and waste loads from industries
    served by the municipal system should reflect application of EPA
    pretreatment requirements for existing and new industries plus any
    expected process changes affecting wastewater and treatment
    residuals.  Wastewater flow forecasts should also include the
                              8-5

-------
    and anticipated discharges from septic tank pumpages into the
    systems.

    3.  Sludge Generation Forecasts

        The volumes and composition of sludge which will be
    generated from treatment of wastewater should be estimated.
    These forecasts should be modified to reflect the different
    treatment levels characteristic of the alternative systems
    considered.

E.  Develop and Evaluate Alternatives

    Since the facilities element of State WQM planning does not
necessarily imply larger interconnected waste treatment systems
for an area, the initial planning for facilities systems should
involve a systematic comparison of many subsystem, as well  as
system, options.  For each municipal wastewater system, subsystem
options should be identified.  Compatible options should be
combined into preliminary treatment systems consistent with the
alternative wasteload allocation sets.

    By using a rough estimation of cost and impact, the components
of the alternative facility plan should then be screened on the
basis of goal attainment, monetary costs, and environmental,
social, and economic effects.  Legal or institutional constraints
and implementation feasibility should also be considered.   Unacceptable
alternatives should be rejected; those remaining should be developed
into a limited number of proposals, employing each of the previously
discussed waste management techniques.  Adequate justification
should be given for eliminating any of those techniques at any
stage.

    The following paragraphs briefly describe major factors that
might be considered and procedures that might be applied in the
development and evaluation of alternative wastewater systems.
However, the following factors should only be considered to the
extent needed to develop the required facilities element of a
State WQM Plan:

    1.  Flow and Waste Reduction Measures

        The Act encourages the use of a variety of methods
    where cost-effective for reducing both the volume and amount
    of waste within municipal wastewater systems.  Some of the
    following measures would reduce not only wastewater loads,
    but water supply demands as well:
                              8-6

-------
    a.  Infiltration/inflow reduction by sewer system
    rehabilitation and repair, and elimination of roof and
    foundation drains.

    b.  Household water conservation measures, such as
    water saving appliances and fixtures.

    c.  Water and wastewater rates that impose costs
    proportional to water used and wastewater generated;
    use of water meters.

    d.  Educating the public on the value of water resources
    and the need to reduce water consumption.
2.  Industrial Service

    Municipal waste treatment systems should be planned to
serve industrial users of the area whenever practicable and
cost-effective.  Special requirements, issues,  and procedures
associated with industrial use of a municipal  system are
covered in section 8.6 of this chapter.

3.  Sewers

    a.  System Configuration and Capacity

        Planning of a waste treatment system includes the
    comparison of alternative arrangements of  interceptors
    and collection pipes, including phased development, to
    assure selection of a cost-effective configuration.  In
    newly developing portions of the planning  area, the
    capacities of the system, in particular the larger
    lateral and interceptor sewers, should generally accommodate
    not more than the 20-year wastewater projection based
    upon the land use plan.   However, choice of interceptor
    and collection pipe sizes should reflect cost-effective
    analysis of alternatives over the planning  period.  The
    practice of designing interceptors for long-term projected
    growth or ultimate development within the  service area
    should be discouraged.  As an alternative,  consideration
    should be given to interim (short-term) treatment works
    for outlying areas or to septic tank units  for individual
    or clustered developments in low density areas.

    b.  Sewer Hookup Schedules

        Since the capacity of the facilities and design of
    the treatment system is  based on flow projections which
    conform to a time-phased land use plan, it  is necessary
                          8-7

-------
    to establish a schedule for hookups in the system.   A
    hookup schedule is important in managing the system over
    time in order to prevent growth from exceeding the  designed
    capacity of the system.

        In the event that a violation of an NPDES permit
    occurs due to overloading of treatment works, the Regional
    Administrator (or the State if the NPDES program has been
    delegated to a State) may, under authority of Section
    402(h) of the Act, seek a court order imposing a ban or
    restrictions upon sewer connections.   A series of planning
    and management actions to prevent overloading of facilities
    may be included as special conditions to permits issued to
    facilities in danger of imminent overloading.

        Since the State WQM Plan is to include a regulatory
    program to regulate location of pollutant discharges in the
    area, and since the management agency(s) must possess
    authority to refuse to treat wastes from a municipality or
    subdivision which does not comply with the plan, a  schedule
    of hookups is an appropriate management approach for carrying
    out this regulatory program.  The enforcement of the schedule
    through the regulatory program may require specific authorizing
    legislation and will therefore necessitate thorough legal
    analysis.  (See Chapter 9.)

4.  Waste Management Techniques

    Alternative waste management techniques must be evaluated
to determine the BPWTT for meeting applicable effluent
limitations, including those related to wasteload allocation.
Information pertinent to this evaluation is contained in an
EPA document entitled "Alternative Waste Management Techniques
for Best Practicable Waste Treatment" (Proposed in March
1974).  Selection of a waste management technique is closely
related to effluent disposal choices.  Preliminary alternative
systems featuring at least one technique under each of  the
three categories (treatment and discharge, wastewater reuse,
and land application or land utilization) should be identified
and screened.  Techniques which incorporate wastewater  reuse
and land application should be utilized whenever possible.  A
more detailed proposal should be prepared for each unless
adequate justification for eliminating a technique during the
screening process is presented.

    Published cost, performance, and other information  is
available for many alternative treatment technologies.
Preliminary screening of these technologies involves comparing
costs and relative treatment capabilities.
                          8-8

-------
a.  Treatment and Discharge

    Treatment and discharge techniques include the
following:

    (1)  Biological treatment including ponds, activated
    sludge, trickling filters, processes for nitrification,
    and denitrification;

    (2)  Physical-chemical treatment including chemical
    flocculation, filtration, activated carbon, breakpoint
    chlorination, ion exchange, and ammonia stripping.

b.  Wastewater Reuse

    In comparing waste management techniques and
alternative systems, wastewater reuse applications
should be evaluated as a means of contributing to local
water management goals.  Such applications include:

    (1)  Industrial processes;

    (2)  Groundwater recharge for water supply enhancement
    or preventing salt water intrusion;

    (3)   Surface water supply enhancement;

    (4)   Recreation lakes;

    (5)   Land reclamation.

    Wastewater reuse needs should be identified and
defined by volume, location, and quality.   These needs
may influence the location of the treatment facilities,
the type of process selected, and the degree of treatment
required.

c.  Land Application

    The application of wastewater effluents on the
land involves the recycling of most of the organic
matter and nutrients by biological action  in the soil
and plant growth, generally providing a high degree of
pollutant removal.  Planning of the land application
techniques should reflect criteria and other information
contained in the EPA document on "Alternative Waste
Management Techniques for Best Practicable Wa^te Treatment."
                      8-9

-------
               Land application techniques  include:

               (1)   Spray,  ridge and  furrow,  and  flood
               irrigation techniques;

               (2)   Overland flow;

               (3)   Infiltration-percolation;

               (4)   Other approaches  such as  evaporation,
               deep well  injection, and  subsurface  leach
               fields.

 5.   Residual  (Sludge)  Management

     Evaluation of  alternatives for management  of residual
 wastes from municipal  treatment works should be  closely
 coordinated with the evaluation of each waste  management
 technique.  Such evaluation includes the evaluation  of
 alternative combinations of sludge processing  and  utilization
 techniques  for satisfactorily and economically disposing  of
 quantities  of residual wastes.   Care must  be taken to assure
 that these  methods do  not  appreciably add  to air quality  or
 water quality problems.

     A variety of sludge  processing and  utilization techniques
 are available including  (a) thickening, (b)  chemical conditioning,
 (c) chemical  stabilization, (d) aerobic and  anaerobic digestion,
 (e) dewatering, (f) thermal processing  for volume  reduction
 or  drying,  (g) composting, and (h) land spreading  as a soil
 conditioner.   Sludge disposal  options are  limited  primarily
 to  land disposal,  land utilization,  and incineration, and
.must comply with the EPA policy statement  on acceptable
 methods, based on  current  knowledge, for the ultimate disposal
 of  sludges  from publicly-owned wastewater  treatment  plants.

     Disposal  techniques  such as soil conditioning  and land
 utilization which  realize  the nutrient  value of  sludge as
 fertilizer  should  be given special attention in  adopting  a
 sludge disposal program  for the area.   Furthermore,  consideration
 should be given to local air pollution  control regulations
 and energy  rquirements if  incineration  is  an option.
 (Guidance on  management  of residuals in general  is contained
 in  Chapter  7.)
                           8-10

-------
6.  Location of Facilities

    Evaluation and choice of sites for treatment plants,
interceptors, transmission lines, outfalls, pumping plants,
and other major works should comply with the land use plan.
Factors to be considered tn selecting location include:

    a.  Possible odor and aesthetic problems;

    b.  Flexibility to convert to possible future reuse
    and additional pollution abatement needs;

    c.  Special protection of potable, shellfish, and
    recreation waters;

    d.  Avoidance of floodplain and wetland areas, if
    practicable;

    e.  Induced growth impacts in flood hazard or environmentalIj
    sensitive areas.

7.  Regionalization

    Regionalization options should be evaluated to assure
use of the most cost-effective facilities systems consistent
with the planning area's waste management needs.  Various
combinations of treatment plants, interceptors and other
works should be identified; and each should be consistent
with a target wasteload allocation.  The economy of scale
associated with a large treatment plant should be balanced
with consideration of environmental and social impact,
especially if the inter-connected system would tend to
induce growth patterns conflicting with the land use plan.
The effect of streamflow depletion due to transport of
wastewater to a downstream plant, and the impact of concentrating
wastes from plant effluents at fewer points should also be
considered.  The evaluation of regionalization might lead to
reconsideration of the service areas that were initially
chosen for developing the facilities element of the State
Water Quality Management Plan.

8.  Phased Development

    a.  General

        In examining the cost-effectiveness of a waste
    treatment system, two alternatives should be considered:
    (1) initial provision of sufficient capacity to serve
                          8-11

-------
the needs of the area as projected over the planning                   Vl
period; and (2) phased development of systems and
modular construction of individual facilities within
the system to meet future needs.  The phased and modular
development option would involve planning for construction
of facilities and facilities components at intervals
throughout the planning period to accommodate projected
increases of waste loads and flows.  The following
factors should be included in an assessment of the
options:  the service life of the treatment works; the
incremental costs; and flow and waste load forecasts.

b.  Reserve and Excess Capacity
                                                                         •»
    The planning of waste treatment facilities will
normally provide some excess capacity to allow for
daily, wet weather, and seasonal flow variations as
well as projected flow increases.  The system capacity
excess should be examined from a cost-effective viewpoint,
particularly for treatment plants serving areas experiencing
growth where phased construction may be more cost-
effective than initial construction for long-term
capacity needs.  Provision of holding storage at the
plant intake should also be considered to equalize
daily flow variations.

c.  Phased Development of System

    Phased development of the system is advisable in
rapidly growing areas, in areas where the projected
flows are uncertain, or where full initial development
of facilities would tend to distort growth from that
shown in the area land use plan.  The phasing should
provide sufficient excess capacity at the beginning of
each construction phase to accommodate expected flow
increases during the phase.  Phasing of sewers may
involve provision of parallel or multiple systems or
extension of single lines.

d.  Modular Development of Individual Facilities

    Modular development of individual facilities is
advisable in areas where high growth rates are projected,
where the required degree of treatment must be upgraded
later in the planning period, or where existing facilities
are to be used initially but phased out later.  Modular
development would avoid long-term operating problems
                      8-12

-------
associated with underutilization of certain components
of the plant.  Where modular development is used, provisions
should be made during the design of the initial facilities
for future additions.

e.  Interim Facilities

    After the State WQM plan has been approved, no
NPDES permit issued may be in conflict with that plan.
Since interim facilities receive permits, they must be
considered in the planning process.  Such facilities
are often used to treat wastes from areas not immediately
serviceable by larger, often regional, treatment facilities.
Careful consideration should be given to the way in
which interim facilities will be used, especially in
high growth areas.  Since such facilities have the
potential for inducing development that may be in
conflict with regional service plans, special attention
should be given to the interim facilities'  eventual
connection to the larger system.  Thus, in  planning for
interim facilities, particular consideration should be
given to:

    (1)   Ensuring that the area to be served by the
    interim facility is in conformance with land use
    plans and controls;

    (2)   Ensuring, through the establishment and
    enforcement of a schedule of hookups for the life
    of the facility, that the interim facility will
    not be overloaded;

    (3)   Ensuring when the facility is no  longer
    needed, that its service area is transferred to a
    permanent facility;

    (4)   Reusing the abandoned facility for some other
    needed function, such as use as a pumping station;

    (5)   Ensuring proper operation, maintenance, and
    inspection.  (Trained, certified operators should
    be used.)

f.  Flexibility and Reliability

    Flexibility and reliability should be considered
throughout the planning of municipal facilities.   As men-
tioned in previous sections, flexibility factors include
                      8-13

-------
             possible upgrading of water quality objectives, future                fl
             application of new technologies, future application of
             wastewater reuse, modular and phased development of facilities,
             and temporary treatment plants.

                 Reliability considerations are important since a
             risk of failure exists in any wastewater system.  With
             a view toward minimizing this risk, the probability,
             duration, and impact of such failures should be considered
             for each system and its components.

8.4  Other Point Sources

     The identification of other point sources within the planning                   ^
area, possible control options, and feasible controls should be included
in point source subplans.   In particular, private wastewater systems
should be evaluated, preferably in conjunction with the municipal
wastewater facilities.  Information regarding planned capacity of such
systems should be sought from private wastewater management agencies.
Planned capacity should be reviewed for consistency with future waste
load reductions.  Any point sources required to obtain permits should
be included in point source subplans.

8.5  Combined Sewer Discharges

     A.  Introduction                                                               fl

         Combined sewer overflows can be sources of significant
     quantities of pollutants.  Since they are an integral  part of the
     municipal wastewater collection system,  untreated overflows from
     combined sewers pose an added threat to public health.

         Various techniques for controlling and treating combined
     storm and sanitary sewer flows can be incorporated into alternative
     areawide subplans for point sources.  Quite often, these problems
     can be substantially reduced through effective control of the
     sources and/or the runoff before it enters the combined sewer
     systems, as is discussed in Chapter 7.  The most cost-effective
     combination of controlling the problems at their source or controlling          *
     the runoff once it enters the stormwater system can be made in
     the later steps of the planning process where alternative subplans
     for point and nonpoint sources are combined into alternative
     plans.  (Chapter 3.6.E.)
                                   8-14

-------
B.  Inventory Existing Conditions

    An inventory of existing combined sewer systems should be
conducted to the extent data are available; the inventory should
include locations and condition of intake bypasses, pipes, regulatory
equipment and other features, and an assessment of both the
existing performance of the system and its optimum performance
with intensive management, operation and maintenance.  Information
on flow variations, design capacities, wastewater constituents,
and waste loads is also needed.  Where flow records are lacking,
estimates of overflows and discharges based upon observations
should be correlated with rainfall amounts.  Wasteload estimates
should be based on pollutant sampling and subsequent tests for
dissolved oxygen (DO), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), ammonia
nitrogen (NHo-N), phosphates (PoOr), total solids (TS), suspended
solids (SS), toxics, and both total and fecal coliform counts.

C.  Estimate Future Haste Loads and Flows

    To provide a basis for planning of control measures,  forecasts
should be made of the waste load magnitude, intensity, and duration
of the problems associated with discharges throughout the planning
period.  Information on existing discharges can provide a convenient
base for the estimates.  Flow volumes and waste loads during
storm periods should be related to the tributary drainage area;
the resulting information can permit forecasting of flow volumes
and waste load increases resulting from future changes in land
use and development.  This information can provide the basis for
estimating flows in combined sewer systems within the planning
area.   Adjustments in projections should be made to account for
density changes, reduction in pollutant discharges due to future
protection of environmentally sensitive areas as reflected in the
land use plan, and probable flow and waste reduction measures.

D.  Develop and Evaluate Alternatives

    The development of alternative areawide control of combined
sewer overflows involves the systematic comparison of feasible
control options, both structural and non-structural.  Operational
strategies should be explored for the entire system to maximize
use of the system capacity.  EPA research has demonstrated many
types of control and treatment techniques for combined sewer
overflows.   Among these, storage options, both upstream from the
system or within the system, appear feasible.  However, this
capacity would generally be limited to the most highly polluted
initial storm runoff from a low-frequency storm event (one chance
in one, to one chance in five of being equalled or exceeded
during any single year).
                              8-15

-------
    Specific factors to be considered in the development evaluation
of combined sewer discharge subplan components are contained in
the following paragraphs.   In general, the most cost-effective
solution will be a mixture of operation/maintenance and construction
techniques.

    1.   Flow and Haste Reduction

        A variety of techniques can be used for reducing flow
    volumes and waste amounts which enter the system.   Consideration
    of these techniques should be coordinated with nonpoint
    source control options planned for the tributary drainage
    area.  They include:

        a.  Reduce disturbance of land cover and maintain surface
        infiltration capacities;

        b.  Control patterns and densities of urban development;

        c.  Reduce nonpoint source runoff through control measures
        for urban and construction activities;

        d.  Preserve or manage lands that have natural  or existing
        characteristics for retarding or reducing flow and surface
        pollutants;

        e.  Control surface runoff and in-system runoff by use of
        permeable material for paving, flow retardation structures,
        and other means of storing and retarding runoff, including
        planned intermittent shallow flooding of parking areas,
        streets and other surfaces where damage would be minimal.

        In State WQM planning, emphasis should be placed on use
    of the above management practices as alternatives or supplements
    to the control measures discussed below, as the former are
    generally far more cost-effective and less environmentally
    disruptive.  Management of runoff is further discussed in
    Chapter 7.

    2.   Alternative Control Techniques

        Alternative control techniques that should be considered
    in combined sewer overflows can be grouped into the following
    five categories:

        a.  Separation of sewage and storm collection systems
        (generally the most costly and least environmentally
        acceptable approach);
                              8-16

-------
             b.  Operational  control  of the existing system (maximum
             use of the system storage by computerized flow regulation
             and subsequent treatment at the plant);

             c.  Storage at points within the system or at the point
             of discharge, and subsequent treatment;

             d.  Direct treatment of  overflows (in-line high rate
             treatment methods);

             e.  High level of maintenance including periodic flushing
             of sewer systems.

8.6  Industrial Wastewater

     A.  Introduction

         The overall  objective of planning for the control and treatment
     of industrial  wastewater is to provide the most efficient approach
     for serving the present and future industrial wastewater treatment
     needs of the area.  Treatment techniques must meet the applicable
     requirements of Sections 204, 301, 302, 304,  306, 307, and 316 of
     the Act.  Industries served by municipal systems must comply with
     pretreatment and cost recovery requirements.   Direct discharge of
     industrial wastes to receiving waters must comply, at a minimum,
     with the provisions of the pertinent Effluent Limitations Guidelines
     and New Sources Performance Standards.  Higher treatment levels
     or internal wasteload reductions will be required where wasteload
     allocations dictate more stringent restrictions.  Application of
     higher treatment levels to meet  water quality standards can be
     mitigated through restricting the location of future industrial
     development to areas where receiving waters can more readily
     assimilate the treated wastewater.  Control of industrial location
     should be incorporated into the  land use plan with recognition of
     other constraints such as air quality control.

         The procedures for evaluating industrial  waste sources and
     problems are basically parallel  to those presented for municipal
     wastewater systems in section 8.3 of this chapter.

         Wastewater flows from all major industrial sources in the
     area should be accurately assessed.  Existing information should
     be used where available, including information on those industries
     that discharge into municipal systems.  To estimate design flows
     and wasteload reductions, information is needed on average flow
     rates, flow variations,  seasonal variations,  wastewater characteristics
     and constituents, and mode of disposal.  Particular emphasis
     should be given to toxic constituents within  the wastes and to
     thermal pollutants present.  Forecasts should be made of the
                                      8-17

-------
future variations of wasteloads and flows over the planning
period and the discharge locations of those wastes.   These forecasts
should be based upon economic and industrial trends, types of
industries and constituents of associated wastes, location constraints
imposed by land use plans, and other restrictions imposed by
industrial permits and air quality implementation plans.   Attention
should be given to estimating waste sludges and slurries  generated
by the industries as well as to the influence that industrial
loads will have on treatment plant sludge.  The effects of user
charges, pretreatment, and effluent limitations guidelines or                     *
higher treatment levels on water and wastewater flows should be
incorporated into the projections.

B.  Develop and Evaluate Alternatives
                                                                                 •?
    The development of alternative approaches for treatment of
industrial wastes and the degree of treatment involves a  systematic
comparison of the following options:

    1.  Pretreatment and discharge of wastewater to  municipal
    systems;

    2.  Direct treatment by individual industries and discharge
    of wastewater into receiving waters;

    3.  Direct treatment and discharge by groups of  industries;                 4k

    4.  Reuse of industrial wastewater;

    5.  Land application.

    In conjunction with each of the above options, consideration
should be given to discharge to either water or land and  to the
effects of flow and waste reduction on internal recycling and
process changes.   Areawide options should be identified in terms
of meeting wasteload allocation constraints and compared  to
provide a rough assessment of costs and impact.  Consideration
should also be given to institutional constraints and feasibility.

    Specific issues that might be addressed in formulating alterntaives           *
are included in the following paragraphs:

    1.  Flow and Waste Reduction

        The flow and waste reduction as it relates to those
    industries that discharge or will discharge into municipal
    systems should be assessed.  Increasingly stringent technical
    and financial requirements on industry should lead to process
    changes that use less water and create less wastewater.
                             8-13

-------
2.  Minimum Effluent Limitations

    Industrial wastewater treatment must comply with the
minimum treatment requirements for Best Practicable Control
Technology (BPT) anc| Best Available Control Technology  (BAT)
by 1977 and 1983, respectively.  These treatment requirements
are set forth for the industries cited in Section 306 of the
Act in a series of EPA documents entitled "Development  Document
for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards for 	Point Source Industry."  These
guidelines contain criteria for each industry for Best  Practicable
Control Technology Currently Available (known commonly  as
BPT) and Best Available Control Technology Economically
Attainable (known as BAT).  The guidelines also provide
minimum criteria for New Source Performance Standards and New
Source Pretreatment Standards.

3.  Joint vs. Separate Municipal and Industrial Facilities

    Municipal waste treatment systems should be planned to
serve industrial users of the area whenever practicable and
cost-effective.  Because of the unusual economy of scale
associated with larger municipal-industrial facilities, as
compared to separate municipal and industrial facilities, a
joint system will often be cost-effective.  In many cases,
however, it may be more economical to have separate industrial
treatment facilities because of the characteristics and
quantities of industrial waste, industrial pretreatment
requirements, and industrial locations and groupings which
facilitate joint industrial treatment and/or reuse of industrial
wastewater.  These considerations are also relevant to the
cost and effectiveness of sludge disposal  options for each
alternative facility.

    Industrial use of municipal facilities should be encouraged
where total costs would be minimized.   Where industrial flow
handled by municipal  systems is significant, cost of separate
treatment of industrial wastes versus  cost of pretreatment
and joint municipal-industrial facilities  should be compared.
This involves comparing the incremental cost of the municipal
facilities required to transport, treat,  and dispose industrial
wastes (and the costs of corresponding pretreatment required)
with the cost of separate industrial  treatment and disposal
facilities of those wastes.   In particular, the analysis
should cover those industries desiring, but not receiving,
municipal, service when facilities planning is initiated.
                          8-19

-------
         4-  Pretreatment and Cost Recovery

             Industrial wastes served by municipal systems must comply
         with industrial pretreatment and cost recovery regulations.
         The pretrt-ainient regulations basically require the removal of
         industrial waste constituents that are not compatible with
         the municipal wabtewater treatment process.   Compatible
         wastes, generally BOD and suspended solids,  can be passed to
         the municipal plant for treatment.  The cost recovery regulations
         prescribe that industrial users must bear a  proportionate
         share of the cost of operating and maintaining the municipal
         system and must, repay the portion of the Federal grant attributed
         to that waste.  Industrial sites should be located where
         receiving waters can more readily assimilate the residual
         wastes and associated nonpoint source runoff.  Such control
         of industrial locations should be incorporated into the land
         use plan and recognize other constraints such as air quality
         control.

8.7  Development u_r_ A1 tivnative Subplans

     The alternative vubplans for point source controls should correspond
to alternative WdSteload allocation sets for design conditions for
meeting water quality standards under both dry weather and rainfall
conditions.  At least one subplan should be developed to correspond to
each wasteload allocation set.  Subplans for continuous point sources,
primarily from municipal and industrial treatment works, should satisfy
the wasteload allocation sets for dry weather conditions.  Subplans
for combined sewer flows should correspond to wasteload reductions for
design conditions reflecting rainfall.

     A.  CoritimuxiS and Seasonal Point Source Subplans

         Investigation of controls for municipal and  industrial wastewater
     may reveal control options that do not correspond to the target
     wasteload reduction sets previously considered.   Additional
     wasteload reduction sets should be developed if necessary to
     enable consideration of reasonable point source control techniques.

     B-  Irvten^Jtte^nt Point Source Subplans

         Subplans for intermittent point sources such as combined
     sewer discharges should correspond to target wasteload reduction
     sets prepared to enable standards to be met under wet weather
     conditions.  As discussed in Chapter 3, calculation of treatment
     levels required to meet standards at wet weather conditions
     should be based on point source treatment levels established for
     dry weather conditions.  Thus, the additional wasteloads carried
     to streams after rain should be dealt with through load reduction
     for intermittent point sources and nonpoint sources.
                                   8-20

-------
C.  Disposal of Residual Hastes

    Point source subplans should provide for the disposal  of
sewage treatment plant residual wastes and should conform with an
areawide program of solid waste disposal.

D.  Description of Alternative Subplans

    Following the screening of the system alternatives,  the
following information on the alternative subplans should be
presented as an input to the development of pollution control
alternatives (refer to Chapter 3.6.E.).

    o  Wasteload characteristics of each alternative expressed
       in appropriate units for relating to the water quality
       prediction model;

    o  Total cost of each alternative expressed as its present
       value or average equivalent value of capital  and  operating
       costs for the overall alternative and subsystem components;

    o  Reliability of each alternative and subsystem included
       in each alternative;

    o  Significant environmental effects of each alternative
       consistent with NEPA procedures, including a  specific
       statement on future development impact;

    o  Contribution of each alternative to other water-related
       objectives of the planning area.
                            8-21

-------
                                 CHAPTER 9

          MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES AND INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
9.1  Introduction

     Institutional arrangements for water quality management are the
formal  structure of affected government units responsible for implementing
the plan.  Units within this structure must have adequate authority to
carry out the full range of management responsibilities (functions)
including, particularly, the regulatory and waste treatment management
requirements of the Act.  It is also essential that the arrangements
assure  proper management and accountability for program operations.

     Sufficient institutional arrangements and authority for plan
implementation may exist when water quality management planning begins.
However, the specific authority required by the Act to be vested in the
implementing agency(s) will  rarely have been delegated under State law
to any  particular government entity.  Where sufficient institutional
arrangements and authority do not exist, enabling legislation must be
sought  and/or arrangements for plan implementation must be created.
Management agency designations cannot be fully approved by EPA unless
the agencies have adequate statutory authority and the regulatory
programs required to implement the plan.

     The planning agency should take the lead role in formulating
institutional arrangements in conjunction with other State and local
agencies.  This chapter discusses the general responsibilities of the
implementing agency(s), the particular tasks associated with the regulatory
and waste treatment management programs and issues associated with the
selection of appropriate institutional arrangements.

9.2  General Management Responsibilities

     The implementation of a State water quality management plan depends
upon the implementing agency(s) carrying out a number of related functions
for which they must be prepared through adequate authority, resources
and organization.

     A.  Program Supervision  and Coordination

        Institutional arrangements must assure that the overall program
     of waste treatment and regulation of pollution sources is coordinated,
     the plan implemented, and its performance assessed.  It is essential
     that overall supervision of the program and accountability for its
     operation be achieved through the designation of an agency to possess
     the authority and resources for program oversight.  The selection of
     the appropriate unit to which this responsibility will be allocated
                                 9-1

-------
     will  require careful  consultation  among  all  the  major  institutions
     affected by the State WQM planning process.   Program supervision
     is needed both at the State level  and in each planning area.   A
     lead agency should also be selected for  each planning  area  to
     supervise planning activities  within the area.

     B. Continuous Planning

        Because implementing a program  to abate  all sources of water
     pollution will require continual attention  to changing conditions
     and pollution control  needs, continuing  planning is  an integral
     part of the State WQM Plan. This  continuing planning  responsibility
     must be allocated within the institutional  framework.   This
     responsibility may be delegated to a lead agency within each  planning
     area.

     C. Fiscal Management

        A major responsibility of institutions implementing the  State
     WQM Plan will be obtaining and budgeting the financial resources
     necessary for plan implementation.  Among other  things, this
     will  mean establishing financial arrangements to support the
     regulatory and waste  treatment programs, together with arrangements
     for the funding of continuing  planning operations and  other
     administrative expenses.  Since financial arrangements are  a  crucial
     component in an effective management strategy, their detailed
     operation must be clearly established prior to plan  implementation.
     Financial arrangements are discussed in  more detail  in Chapter 12.

9.3  Regulatory Program

     The regulatory program formulated  by the agency  must contain  the
following elements specified in Sec. 208(b)(2)(C) of  the  Act:

     1. The identification of all pollution sources in each planning
     area and an indication of which agencies have been designated
     for their regulation.

     2. An indication that agency(s) with regulatory  responsibility
     possess the statutory authority, or have initiated legislative
     proposals to obtain the authority  to carry  out this  activity
     and to utilize the specific forms  of regulation  called for  in
     the program.

     3. An indication of which form(s)  of regulation  (land  use,  permits,
     licenses, pretreatment standards,  associated fiscal  policies, etc.)
     will be applied to pollution sources.
                                  9-2

-------
4. Specification of the technical  requirements to b° incorporated
into the regulation.

5. Provisions that those affected  by regulation will have adequate
notice, rights of appeal, and other legal  safeguard*- to encourage
full compliance.

A. Agency Selection

   Many existing agencies with responsibilities h> the water quality
management area should be considered when  arranging regulatory
responsibilities for specific pollution sources,   in addition to
various State and local agencies,  it may be posviH: *o utilize
regional agencies.  For the regulation of point sources, these
agencies may include state air and water pollution control  organiza-
tions, natural resource departments, public health agencies or
institutions responsible for the NPDES program.  Regional and local
agencies might include governments of general  jurisHirtion, sewage
treatment agencies, or special district author-Hi*^ .  For nonpoint
source regulation, agencies might  include  Soil Conservation Districts,
State agricultural and forestry agencies,  State land management
bureaus, and State soil and water  conservation ac^n-ie" „

B. Statutory Requirements

   The Act requires that a regulatory program iruJuHp the following:

   1. To the extent practicable, provide for waste treatment
   management on an areawide basis and for identification,  evalua-
   tion and control or treatment of all point and nonpoint
   pollution sources;

   2. Regulate the location, modification, and conduction of
   any facilities within the area  which may r^suH  in .^ny discharge
   in such area;

   3. Assure tnat industrial or commercial wastes scharged into
   any treatment works in the area meet applicaMo ore treatment
   requirements.

The regulatory program is also affected by Sec. 208(b)(2)(F-K) which
requires that water quality management plans:   1) -'et forth procedures
and methods (including land use requirements) ro
extent feasible nonpoint pollution sources re'
silviculture, mining, and construction; and ?'
    to  the
 agriculture,
ish  processes
to protect ground and surface water quality through controls on
disposition of residual wastes and on land disposal oV pollutants.
                             9-3

-------
      To meet the requirements of the Act, the implementing agency(s)
will need clear, explicit and overall authority for their regulatory
activities.  They should not assume that the authority is implicit
or inherent in existing law.  In some cases, the authority necessary
for some of the regulatory tasks may be present in governmental
entities, or combinations of them, to be included in the management
arrangements.  In other cases, additional authority may be necessary
to carry out specific regulatory responsibilities.  This may require
a delegation of authority from other state or federal  agencies or
new state legislative enactments.  It may be possible  to acquire
necessary regulatory authority by amending existing legislation.
Instead of enacting new legislation or amending existing laws, it may
be advisable to include in the institutional arrangements, agencies
which already have the needed authority but may not normally be
involved in water pollution control.  Examples of such agencies would
include those with regulatory power over land use and  construction
activity.

C. Regulatory Controls

   The regulatory controls are the specific measures used to regulate
a pollution source.  There are several general forms of regulation
which may be used individually, or in combination, for regulatory
purposes.  Additional regulatory controls are discussed in Ch. 6.

   1. Land Use.  Many land use control measures could  be used in a
   regulatory program.  These include:

      - authority over the use and development of public lands;
      - soil conservation measures;
      - flood plain or other critical area controls;
      - zoning or subdivision controls exercised by local govern-
        ments in collaboration with the state water quality program

   2. Permits and Licenses.  It is often possible to create permit
   and/or licenses to accomplish many water quality management goals:

      - NPDES permits may be issued with effluent standards that
        assure des'ired water'quality;
      - pretreatment permits may be required for effluents entering
        wastewater treatment facilities to assure desired water-
        quality;
      - permits for other point sources; or permits and licenses
        for activities generating nonpoint source pollution, may specify
        criteria for siting, design, and performance of facilities and
        operations.
                             9-4

-------
The effectiveness of any permit program depends upon the
availability of sanctions and adequate staffing.   It is
important that planning agencies give careful  attention to
providing adequate sanctions for the program and  to assuring
the availability of resources necessary to implement them.

3. Standards.  State water pollution control agencies have the
ability to create or to modify water quality standards.  State
agencies may set water quality standards at more  stringent
levels than the national guidelines in order to implement anti-
degradation policies.  Like the use of permits for regulatory
purposes, the effectiveness of the program depends upon the
availability and use of effective sanctions for noncompliance
and adequate staffing.

4. Fiscal Policies.  Various fiscal policies,  such as taxation
and pricing, may be used to complement the regulatory program.

   a. Pricing Policy

      Pricing policy can be used to reduce the flow of wastewater
   through metering.  In this regard, there are two decisions
   which must be made.  The first, for many areas, is whether or
   not to meter.  Unless there are meters, charges cannot be
   be assessed for incremental use, and therefore a pricing
   policy cannot affect flow and waste reduction.  Savings from
   a reduction in water and wastewater flow must  be balanced
   against the costs of metering.  Relevant savings and costs
   apply to both the water and waste treatment systems.

      If a decision is made to meter, or to meter certain classes
   of users, the second decision is to determine  the rate levels.
   To encourage cost-effective choices on the  part of users,
   economic analysis indicates that at the margin of use, rates
   should equal marginal costs.  Rates should  reflect the
   incremental cost attributable to flow, the  incremental cost of
   BOD removal, etc.

      In practice, and in current guidelines,  the emphasis on
   developing user charges has been on identifying average
   costs attributable to flow removal of BOD or other constituents
   While rates based on such estimates are not ideal, they have
   been effective in inducing wastewater flow  reduction and
   industrial process change.
                            9-5

-------
      b. Taxation Policy

         Differential  assessment ratios  can  serve  as  an  inducement
      to keep land in  a nonurban classifiaction  for open space  or
      low density.  Such a policy permits  owners to maintain  land
      in its present use, but does not prohibit  its sale for  a
      more intensive use at a later date.  The policy therefore
      tends to slow down the rate of development,  without completely
      prohibiting it,  but gives  no assurance that  the most environ-
      mentally sensitive areas are given the most  protection.

         Other taxation policies should  also be  considered.   For
      example, sales tax exemptions, property tax  exemptions, and
      tax deductions can be used to pay  or subsidize  private
      dischargers to encourage process changes to  lower  the genera-
      tion of pollutants.

      c. Public Investment Policy

         The waste treatment facilities  elements of the  plan  will
      have a direct relationship with public investment  policy.
      The provision of sewerage  service  is one of  the more important
      public investment decisions an area  can make.   Careful
      consideration must be given to ensuring that other public
      investment policies and decisions  are  consistent with the plan.
      Most important among these are transportation,  water supply,
      and public facilities.  In developing  the  plan  it  is necessary
      to ensure that areas scheduled to  be sewered also  receive
      other necessary  public facilities  and  services. Decisions
      about public investments can be made to reinforce  the jplan
      and, in particular, the regulatory program.  For example,
      areas that are to be moderately developed  should have a
      transportation system adequate for that level but  not for
      extensive development.

D. Technical Requirements

   To determine whether compliance with  a  regulatory  program  is
being achieved, the program should include a specification of the
type of pollutant to be regulated from each  pollution source  and
the level of control which is sought. The regulatory goal  should
be clearly understood  by those responsible for assuring  compliance
and those regulated by the program.  A more  detailed  discussion of
technical requirements may be found in Chapters  3.6,  6,  7, 8, 9,  10.
                             9-6

-------
     E. Procedural Requirements

        The regulatory program should incorporate adequate compliance
     procedures and arrangements to protect the interest of those
     affected by the program.  The procedural arrangements in the
     program should include at least the following:

        1. A procedure for giving adequate notice to those regulated
        by the plan concerning when, where, and how the regulation
        will apply to them.

        2. Information to regulated parties specifying how they are
        expected to conform to the regulatory program.

        3. A method for hearing and responding to grievances among
        those affected by regulation.

        4. A notice and hearing procedure for major regulatory decisions
        made by the management agency(s).

        5. Provisions for public participation in the administration
        of the regulatory program.

        In order to devise an effective regulatory strategy, it may be
     useful to take an inventory of existing regulation for each
     pollutant source category.  Based upon an assessment of the adequacy
     of existing regulation to deal with each pollutant problem, necessary
     modifications of existing regulatory approaches can be proposed.
     The need for additional legislation to establish adequate regulation
     of pollution sources should be assessed as early as possible in the
     planning process so that action may be taken to obtain the necessary
     regulatory authority.

9.4  Waste Treatment Management Program

     A waste treatment management program consists of all those activities
necessary to create, operate, finance, and enforce the waste treatment
provisions of the State WQM Plan.  It is particularly important that
management agency(s) obtain the required authority for these tasks as
described in Section 208(c)(2) of the Act and that they develop effective
management strategies for implementing these responsibilities.  Manage-
ment agencies should not rely upon implied powers for their authority
but should obtain explicit authority for their tasks.  It is very likely
that some of the required authority will not be possessed by management
agency(s) when planning begins and will have to be explicitly obtained
before the management phase begins.  The waste treatment management
tasks include all of those mentioned below.
                                   9-7

-------
A. Securing Comprehensive Authority

   Section 208(c)(2)(A) requires that there be adequate authority
"to carry out appropriate portions of an areawide waste treatment
management plan..."  The tasks for which this  authority is  needed
are described in Sec. 208(b).   Usually,  this authority will  be
distributed among several agencies in the 208  area.   An important
planning task is to allocate,  and sometimes to consolidate,  this
authority among those units responsible  for the management  program.
The plan must identify agencies necessary to carry out the  plan.

   Section 208(c)(2)(B) requires that there be adequate authority
to "manage effectively waste treatment works and related facilities..."
in conformance with the plan.   In this regard, the broad definition
of "treatment works" set forth in Sec. 212(2)(B) and discussed  in
Chapter 8 should be kept in mind.  Institutional arrangements must
incorporate some means of coordination among the agencies involved
in administering the plan so that conflicts can be resolved  and
the plan properly enforced.

B. Operations Management

   The Act requires in Section 208(c)(2)(C) that there be adequate
authority "directly or by contract, to design  and construct  new
works, and to operate and maintain new and existing works as
required by (the) plan..."  Generally, existing waste treatment
agencies already have this authority. However, where works  are
to be located outside the immediate jurisdiction, or when discharges
from outside the immediate jurisdiction  are to be accepted,  adequate
enabling legislation to meet this requirement  may have to be enacted.
When approval of a superior agency is required, it should be secured
before a construction grant application  is made.  The management
plan should provide sufficient manpower, fiscal resources,  and
administrative expertise to assure that  the customary management
tasks associated with such a waste treatment operation are  properly
discharged.

C. Financing

   The Act requires in Section 208(c)(2)(D) that there shall  be
adequate authority "to accept and utilize grants, or other  funds
from any source for waste treatment management purposes."  Most
waste treatment agencies have this authority under state law.
Where such authority does not exist, enabling  legislation must
be passed.  Some States have arrangements permitting State  agencies
to redistribute grants among local government  units, but the Act
requires that the full federal share of  funding for treatment agencies
be distributed to the local units.
                             9-8

-------
        Section 208(c)(2)(E-G) deals with other authority required in
     relation to financial arrangements.  It should be noted that
     Sec. 204(b)(l)(A) and (B) require that all user charge arrangements
     must assure that each user pay his proportionate share of service
     costs and that there be full industrial cost recovery in the program.
     Many existing arrangements for assessing user charges are not
     likely to meet these tests.  See Chapter 10 for a discussion of
     user charges.

        In addition to these specific statutory requirements, the
     management agency(s) must be prepared to deal with the customary
     fiscal responsibilities for program management, including the raising
     and transfer of funds internally, and the apportionment of responsibility
     for financing operating costs of the program among the constituent units.

     D. Sanctions

        An effective waste treatment program includes sanctions.   Section
     208(c)(2)(H) requires that there be adequate authority "to refuse to
     receive any wastes from any municipality or subdivision thereof,
     which does not comply with any provisions of (the) approved plan..."
     This authority, which may be exercised by an appropriate state agency,
     would be used only in extreme cases, and only if such measures as
     negotiations, fines, additional charges, moratoria, and court settle-
     ments have proven unsuccessful.

        The Act also requires in Sec. 208(c)(2)(I) that there be adequate
     authority "to accept for treatment industrial wastes."  This authority
     also extends to refusal of wastes which do not meet applicable pre-
     treatment requirements as mentioned in Sec. 208(b)(2)(C)(iii).
     Other grounds for refusal exist when an industry does not comply with
     the State WQM Plan or violates applicable State or federal discharge
     laws.

9.5  Basic Issues in Management Agency Designation

     Many issues will  have to be resolved to determine the management
agency(s) and institutional arrangements necessary to meet the requirements
of the Act.  The basic issues are:

     1. What agency will  exercise responsibility for overall program
     supervision and enforcement?

     2. To what extent will the affected local governments be involved
     in the management arrangements?

     3. Will implementation responsibility be vested in a single agency
     or diverse agencies?
                                  9-9

-------
4. What will be the relationship between the management agency(r>)
implementing the State WQM Plan and those agency(s)  implementing
portions of the State WQM Plan in designated 208 areas?

5. If consolidation of agency responsibilities is undertaken,  how
will  this be accomplished?

6. What decisions will be taken to assure that local  land  use
decisions do not adversely affect water quality?

7. To what degree will agencies be supported from tax revenue?

Attached (page 9-11)  is a chart which suggests where responsibility
for major elements of plan implementation might be located.

A. Options in Institutional  Arrangements

   The choice of the agency(s) to implement the State WQM  Plan
will  probably be influenced by the number of governmental  units
which possess or can secure the authority to manage  the waste  treat-
ment program and to implement the regulatory aspects  of the  State
WQM Plan.  Generally, there are several approaches to consider:

   1. Single Planning and Implementing Agency for Each Planning Area

      One option is to establish a single planning and implementing
   agency for all the area included in the plan.  This would facilitate
   greater coordination and continuity between planning and  imple-
   mentation than would be possible if these two responsibilities
   were assigned to separate entities.  If this approach is  taken,
   it is important to assure that the agency involved has  sufficient
   statutory authority to carry out the requirements  of both planning
   and implementation and that elected officials are  included  in
   the planning process.  This option might be especially  appropriate
   for carrying out State WQM Plans on public lands  where  a  state  or
   federal agency could assume both planning and implementation
   responsibility.

   2. Single Planning and a Single Implementing Agency for Each
      Planning Area

      Another option is to divide the planning and implementation
   responsibilities between two separate agencies.  This would make
   day-to-day coordination more difficult, but might facilitate
   the implementation of the plan by requiring less  reorganization
   of existing agency authorities than might otherwise be  needed.
   Again, it is important that the planning agency have elected
                             9-10

-------
                     O>
                     4->
                     rO
                     -t->
                     CO
                                               X
                                                             X
to
CO
t—t
oo
                  ro  U
                  r— pi—
                  O  S-
                  OJ 4->
                  CL (/>
                 OO -r-
                    Q
    c;
    oi

    c
M-  i-
 O  O>
    >
 t/>  O
 OJ CD
 >
•r-  O)
4->  in
 rO  O
4->  0.
 C  i-
 Ol  3
 l/l D-
 Ol
 S- r—
 CL ro
 Oi  S-
o:  oi
    c
    OJ
   CD
Lu  UJ
O  (J3
                     o
                    o
CO
t—H
00
OO
o
D.
   -O

    to
    C

    §J
    to
    oi
    c
    o

    -13
    ro
    C
    •r—
    •o
    i.
    o
+->  o
 c  o
 O)  ^
 E  C
 Oi  O
 CD-r-
 ro  to
 c:  -r-
    0)
r—  CL
 03  3
 i-  to
 Ol   I
 £   I
 OJ
                                                              ro
                                         cn
                                         (O
                                         to
                                         3
                                         O
                                         C
                                         o
                                         o

                                          I
4->
C
O)

OI
en
ro
c
rO
E
                                                O
                                                to













C
0
•r™
.(->
ro

3
CD
OI
QL
r—
S_
OI
sz
-t-J
o

-o
c
rO

O)
l/>
3

-o
C
rO

1
I


to
r~.
o
i-
•4->
C
o
o

4->
c
OI
E
OI
CO
ro
C
ro





l/>
0)
to
C
OI
q

r—

-o
c
ro

(/)
4->
tr—
E
s_
OI
CL
i
i












t/l
T3
S_
rO
•o
C
ro
+->
t/l
1
1


                                                                    to
                                                                    o>
                                                                    •1—
                                                                    (J
                                                                    O
                                                                    CL
                                      rO
                                      O
                                      to
   4->
    C
    O)
    E
    OI
    en
    ro
    c

^i
 c.
 <1» 01

 Sg
 01.,-
 ro j-J
S  oi
    CL
 OJ  O
4-J  I
 to  I
 cn
 c:
•r-
 o
 c
 ro
 C
                                                                                               (/I
o
c
ro
to
 1
                                                                9-11

-------
officials on its Advisory Board.   This option might be necessary
if one agency conducted planning  and another agency undertook
implementation responsibilities for public lands.

3. Single Planning Agency and Plural Implementing  Agencies  for Each
   Planning Area

   A third option would be a single planning agency and more than
one management agency.  The use of multiple implementing agencies
might permit the gathering of sufficient authority and resources
for plan management without consolidation or other reorganization
of existing governmental bodies.   While coordination between the
planning agency and the management agencies would  be more difficult,
the plan might be more rapidly implemented.  Economies of scale
in plan implementation, however,  would not be likely due to frag-
mentation.  Two approaches to securing supervision and enforcement
in plan implementation should be  considered:

   a. A single supervisory agency with clear responsibility and
   resources for" overall management, coordination, and plan
   enforcement.

   b. Apportionment of some responsibilities for plan supervision
   and enforcement among several  agencies with one given the lead
   role.

The advantage of fixing responsibility for supervision and enforce-
ment of the plan upon a single agency is clear accountability and
greater coherence in conflict resolution, plan coordination, and
overall management activities.  Dividing responsibility for program
supervision and coordination among several agencies while designating
one as the lead agency may disturb existing agency powers and relation-
ships less and reduce the difficulties of formulating a satisfactory
management scheme.

4. Role of the State in Planning  and Implementation under Options
   Presented Above

   For each planning area, the State may delegate  both planning and
implementation responsibilities.   However, if planning responsibilities
are delegated, a lead planning agency should be designated in each
planning area.  Under any of the options discussed above, the State
is ulimately responsible for assuring plan implementation.
                             9-12

-------
B. Intergovernmental Agreements

   No matter which of the above options is chosen, formal  inter-
governmental agreements must be made.  Adjustments in the  authority
and in services of local, regional, or state governments in a State
WOM area may be effected by different forms of legal  agreement and
statutory authorization.

   1. Contract

      Where a single agency already encompasses the entire §208 area,
   other participating local units (county, metropolitan government
   or metropolitan special district, etc.) of government may contract
   with it to provide the services required.

   2. Joint Exercise of Powers

      Where they do not already exist, consolidated agencies may be
   established jointly by the participating local  units of government
   Interlocal contracts or agreements may be utilized in such joint
   exercise of powers.

   3. Delegation of Responsibility

      Where a new areawide agency is established,  the State may
   transfer functions to it from other local, regional, or state
   agencies through appropriate enabling legislation.

C. A-95 Review

   In accordance with OMB (Office of Management and Budget)
Circular A-95 Revised, dated November 13, 1973, all applicants under
federal programs which provide assistance to state, local, and area-
wide projects and activities planned on a multijurisdictional basis
must notify the appropriate state and areawide planning and develop-
ment clearinghouse for review and comment.  The proposed application
will be reviewed for its consistency with areawide plans including
comprehensive planning, environmental concerns, water supply and
distribution systems, sewage facilities and waste  treatment works,
and land use.  In most cases, either a regional planning agency or
COG serves as the regional clearinghouse, and, as  mentioned above,
may be utilized as the areawide planning agency under §208.  As
part of its review responsibilities, the State should ensure that
any part proposed applications are consistent with State WQM Plans.
On the national level, EPA reviews the annual certification of
State plans.
                             9-13

-------
                               CHAPTER 10

                         FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS
10.1 Introduction
     Financial planning must be an integral part of the planning process.
The purpose of financial planning is to determine the methods and arrange-
ments which management agency(s) can use to finance the implementation of
a water quality management plan.  A financial plan including a budget should
be developed to describe the sources of financing for the three functions  to
be carried out by the management agency(s):

     1.  General management program, including program administration,
     supervision and coordination, and continuing planning;

     2.  Regulatory program, including administrative activities and
     possible capital outlays involved in compensation of land owners
     affected by regulation;

     3.  Waste treatment management program, including planning, construction,
     operation and administration of municipal facilities and other
     public sector pollution control projects (including nonpoint source
     abatement projects).

     In order to budget for these activities of management agency(s), it
is useful to consider three types of costs that may be incurred in carrying
out the activities:

     - capital construction costs;
     - operational costs and revenue;
     - indirect (overhead) costs.

     In developing a financial plan, it is useful to distinguish the
activities in need of financing, the management agency(s) proposed to
administer the element of a plan, and the possible means of financing the
capital, operating, and indirect costs associated with that element of the
plan.  The following section discusses the requirements of the Act pertain-
ing to three types of financing involved in carrying out a water quality
management plan.  The next section (Ch. 10.3) discusses how these requirements
might be met in order to carry out management agency functions.  The final
section (Ch. 10.4) suggests information to include in a financial plan.

10.2 Requirements of the Act

     Provisions directly and indirectly affecting financial arrangements
are contained throughout the Act with those specifically affecting the State
WQM Plan set forth in Title II.
                                   10-1

-------
A.  Capital Construction Costs

    1.  S208(b)(2)(E) requires that the water quality management plan
    include identification of the measures necessary to carry out
    the plan including financing and the costs of carrying out the
    plan within the necessary period of time.  This applies to all
    capital costs associated with point and nonpoint source controls.

    2.  §204(a)(4) requires that the applicant proposing to construct
    treatment works agree to pay the non-Federal costs of such work.

    3.  S204(b)(l)(C) provides that the Administrator shall not
    approve any grant for any treatment works unless he shall first
    determine that the applicant has the financial capability to
    insure adequate construction, operation, and maintenance of the
    treatment works through the applicant's jurisdiction.

    4.  §208(c)(2)(C) requires that the waste treatment management
    agency(s) have adequate authority directly or by contract to
    design and construct new works and operate and maintain them.

    5.  S208(c)(2)(D) requires that waste treatment management agency(s)
    have adequate authority to accept and utilize grants or other
    funds from any source for waste treatment management purposes.

    6.  S208(c)(2)(F) requires that the waste treatment management
    agency(s) have adequate authority to incur short and long term
    indebtedness.

    7.  §204(b)(l)(B) provides that the Administrator shall not
    approve any grant for any treatment works unless the applicant
    has made provision for industrial cost recovery (recovery from
    industrial users of the portion of the Federal share of treat-
    ment works construction cost attributable to industrial waste
    treatment).

    8.  Section 12 of the Act provides for an Environmental Financing
    Authority under the Secretary of the Treasury.  This Authority is
    established to assure that inability to borrow necessary funds on
    reasonable terms does not prevent state or local public bodies
    from carrying out waste treatment works construction projects
    eligible for assistance under the Act.  The Authority is authorized
    to purchase the financial obligations of these public bodies to
    finance the non-Federal share of such construction.

B.  Operational Costs and Assessment of Revenue

    1.  S204(b)(l)(C) provides that the Administrator shall not
    approve any grant for any treatment works unless the applicant
                              10-2

-------
          has  financial  capability  to  insure operation and maintenance
          of the  treatment works.

          2.   S208(c)(2)(E)  provides that  the waste  treatment management
          agency(s)  must have  adequate authority  to  raise revenues,  includ-
          ing  the assessment of waste  treatment charges, to  implement all
          elements of the plan.

          3.   S208(c)(2)(G)  provides that  the waste  treatment management
          agency(s)  must have  adequate authority  to  assure,  in  implementing
          waste treatment management plan, that each participating
          community pays its proportionate share  of  the  treatment costs.

          4.   S204(b)(l)(A)  provides that  the Administrator  shall not approve
          any  grants for any treatment works unless  the  applicant has adopted  or
          will adopt a system  of user  charges assuring that  each recipient of  waste
          treatment services will  pay  its  proportionate  share of the cost of
          operation and maintenance (including replacement)  of  any waste
          treatment services provided  by the applicant.

     C.    Indirect (Overhead)  Costs to Be  Financed

          1.   Continuing planning is an indirect  cost to be  financed by the
          management agency.  §208(b)(3) requires that the water quality
          management plan shall  be  certified annually by the governor of
          the  state or his  designee as being consistent  with the applic-
          able basin plan.

          2.   §208(b)(2)(F)-(K) provide that the  management  plan shall
          include processes  to identify and/or control nonpoint sources
          of pollution.  Nonpoint source planning is an  especially
          important part of  continuing planning.

          3.   §201(e) provides that the Administrator shall  encourage waste
          treatment management which results in integrating  facilities  for
          sewage treatment  and recycling.   It further provides  that  such
          integrated facilities shall  be designed and operated  to produce
          revenues in excess of capital and operation and maintenance costs
          and  that such revenues shall be  used by the designated regional
          management agency  to aid  in  financing other environmental  improve-
          ment programs.

10.3 Development of Financial  Plans

     A.   Capital  Construction  Costs

          Capital costs will be incurred primarily in the construction
     of waste  treatment systems.  However, in some cases, fixed capital


                              10-3

-------
investment may be necessary in order  to finance  a  regulatory  program
involving acquisition of land or compensation  of landowners.

     1.    Waste Treatment Program

          Due to the number and variety of methods for financing  waste
     the broad range of financial  arrangements available rather than
     follow any rigid formula.  Some  requirements  of the Act  should
     present few if any difficulties  with regard to financial  arrange-
     ments for treatment of wastes; others are more likely to cause
     problems.  Financial arrangements which should be relatively easy
     to provide are as follows:

          a.  Capital funds may be raised or generated from the general
          fund, particularly if the applicant  is a government unit of
          general jurisdiction.

          b.  Capital funds may be generated from  grants or funds from
          any other sources.  In some instances, matching funds may be
          required.

          c.  The capacity and ability to contract indicates  a limited
          ability to generate short-term indebtedness.

          d.  The capacity to incur short-term indebtedness may be demon-
          strated by the ability to issue bond anticipation notes, grant
          anticipation notes, or to borrow from  state agencies.  Such
          short term indebtedness must, of course, comply with constitu-
          tional limitations on borrowing and  with any state  or local
          statutory requirements.

          e.  The capacity to incur long-term  debt may be demonstrated
          by the capacity to issue general obligation bonds,  revenue
          bonds, or the capacity to borrow from  state agencies.  Exercise
          of this capacity to borrow  is of course  limited in  many instances
          by constitutional or statutory provisions.  There must  also be
          compliance with state and local statutory requirements  for the
          issuance of bonds or the incurring of  such long-term indebtedness.

          Areas in which problems may be encountered in complying with the
     Act include the following:

          a.  The industrial cost recovery requirements of the Act are
          specifically covered in 40  CFR 35 Subpart E, of the grant regu-
          lations and in Industrial  Cost Recovery  Guidelines  (February 1976.)
          Program Requirements Memorandum No.  75-10 provides  that industrial
          cost recovery charges may be allocated on a systemwide  basis
          provided that the treatment works project for which the grant
          is made is substantially interconnected, with a goal to be
          completely interconnected physically to  all other portions of
          the system.  The degree to  which a grantee's treatment works
          constitutes a  "system" is open for determination by the
          Regional Administrator.


                                10-4

-------
         If an industrial  user discontinues  use  of the  treatment
    works its  payment for  industrial  cost recovery ceases.   This
    does not,  however, preclude local  initiative for  recovery
    of the local  share of  capital  costs  from industry.   Such local
    recovery provisions are not subject  to the  ICR guidelines.   In
    addition,  securing long-term contractual  agreements  with
    industry for  use of a  facility may increase  the incentive  for
    that industry to remain in the system.

    b.  In the event of consolidation of two or  more  areas  or
    agencies,  each of which had incurred indebtedness and other
    contractual obligations in supplying waste  treatment services,
    a legally acceptable method must be  set forth for the consoli-
    dated agency to assume payment of the debts  and obligations.
    Personnel  contracts, retirement benefits, long-term supply
    contracts, etc., should be paid particular  attention.

    c.  In the event of treatment system consolidation,  problems may
    arise over the new waste treatment management agency reimbursing
    the participating agencies for the value of  their existing facili-
    ties and assets.  A fair and uniform method  of determining the
    values of these assets and a legally acceptable method  of  handling
    the transfer should be set forth.

2.  Regulatory Program

    Capital outlays may be necessary in  carrying out a regulatory
program over existing and  future waste discharge; such outlays
might arise from land acquisition or compensation of landowners
for reduction in the value of their land due to  development restric-
tions.  These expenditures may be financed through some of  the
financial arrangements discussed above—general  funds,  grants, or
bonds.  Capital expenditure for land acquisition could be considered
as part of multi-objective programs such as programs  for parks and
recreation.  Alternative means for defraying potential  capital
expenditures incurred by regulatory programs would include  land
dedication requirements and incentives in subdivision regulations,
cluster zoning, planned unit development ordinances,  and other self-
financing schemes for encouraging land development that is  compatible
with environmental objectives.
                        10-5

-------
B.  Operational  Costs and Revenue Assessments

    1.   Waste Treatment Program

        The Act provides two mechanisms for financing the operating
    costs of waste treatment facilities:

        a.  User Charges. 40 CFR 35 Subpart E,  and related guidelines
        provide the basis for establishing user charges.   As set forth
        in these regulations and guidelines, the Act requires that each
        recipient of waste treatment services  pay its proportionate
        share of costs of operation and maintenance.  A decision by
        the Comptroller General of the United  States held that use of
        ad valorem taxes for user charge systems does not satisfy the
        requirements of P.L. 92-500.  Uniform  rates on volume among
        classes of users will suffice if the classification reflects
        the differences in cost of treatment among classes of users.
        b.  Participating communities'  proportionate shares.   In deter-
        mining each participating community's proportionate share of
        treatment costs, the differentials among communities  should be
        explained and justified.   In the event that all  participating
        communities are charged on the  same basis,  justification should
        be given.  The provisions and effects of inter!oca! agreements
        and contracts to supply waste treatment services should be
        reviewed and set forth.  The methods of charging users  within
        each of the participating communities should be defined.  The
        user charge requirement cannot  be avoided by inter!oca!  agree-
        ments or contracts to supply waste treatment services.   User
        charge requirements must be reflected in determining  the par-
        ticipating communities' proportionate shares of treatment costs.

            For pollution abatement projects not financed through the
        construction grants program of  the FWPCAA (for example.,  non-
        point source abatement projects), the principle of effluent fees
        or user charges should also be  followed for financing operating
        costs.

    2.  Regulatory Program

        Locally established regulatory  programs in  which capital invest-
    ments are incurred may also be financed through user charges.  For
    example, if land is acquired for protection of critical or  flood
    prone areas, recreational  facilities on these lands  could provide
    a source of revenue to defray capital and operating  expenses of such
    projects.
                                10-6

-------
C.  Indirect (Overhead) Costs

    1.  General Management Program

        The overall  management of State WQM Plan implementation,  includ-
    ing continuing planning, program administration, supervision, and
    coordination, will  necessitate specific sources of funding.   The
    following are examples of some of the activities of a management
    program for which financing would be needed:

        a.  Program supervision and coordination:

            - water quality monitoring and surveillance;
            - development of revised work plans and State/EPA Agreement;
            - performance evaluation for each planning area;
            - determination of the need to revise  elements of the plan and
              delegation of revision to regional,  State, or Federal
              agencies;
            - coordination with other planning programs;
            - public participation in plan implementation.

        b.  Continuous  planning:

            - plan revision and updating;
            - annual certification of plan.

        c.  Fiscal management:

            - budget development;
            - development of financial arrangements to implement  plans;
            - financial consulting with affected management agency(s)
              during plan implementation.

        The possible sources of financing for the  general management
    program might include general revenue, grants, bonds, and special
    taxes and assessments.  Since water quality management provides
    specific services such as sewage treatment, nonpoint source
    pollution abatement (including protection of property from flood
    and erosion hazards), access to recreation opportunities, water
    supply protection,  fish and wildlife conservation and many other
    benefits, the administrative costs for carrying out the State
    WQMP should be assessed to those benefiting from the services
    provided by plan implementation.   Examples of  financing mechanisms
    directed to users of these services would include:   water and
    sewer charges, flood insurance premiums,  portions of general  taxes,
    recreational  user fees, and hunting and fishing licenses.
                              10-7

-------
10.4 Budget Preparation and Supporting Documentation

     A.   The plan must include a projection of costs  of carrying out the
     plan.    This  projection  should be over a 20-year period.   The
     projection could distinguish between waste treatment,  regulatory,
     and general management activities of the agency(s) designated to
     implement  the plan.   The  projection could also  break the costs of
     carrying out these activities into capital,  operating,  and  indirect
     costs  as appropriate.  For each activity involved in plan implementation,
     the budget should indicate the specific form(s)  of financing to be
     employed.

     B.   For activities and elements of the plan  to  be carried out in the
     first  five years of plan  implementation, a more  detailed 5-year projec-
     tion including capital improvement budgeting and cash  flow  should  be
     provided.   It should include start-up costs, carrying  charges during
     the first  years of operation and similar nonrecurring  costs associated
     with plan  implementation.

     C.   The method for obtaining budget approval for the 5-year capital
     improvement budget should be described, and  should indicate the
     schedule for obtaining such approval.

     D.   Where  an activity or  element of the plan is  to be  financed by
     increased  taxes, charges, unused bonding capacity, or  other increased
     assessment through existing sources of financing, the  budget should
     indicate the present and  projected charges.

     E.   The legal  authority of the agency(s) to undertake  the financing
     necessary  for plan implementation should be described  in an opinion
     letter from the legal counsel for the agency(s).  This opinion letter
     could  also be prepared by counsel experts specialized  in the field of
     bond financing and State  and local taxation.
                                   10-8

-------
                               CHAPTER 11

                     COST ASSESSMENT CONSIDERATIONS
11.1 Introduction

     The State Water Quality Management Plans are to include an estimate
of the cost of carrying out the plan.   The costs to be assessed should
include capital, operating, administrative, and maintenance costs.   These
costs can usually, be measured in monetary terms.  Other costs,  however,  such
as social, environmental and economic costs, may be more difficult  to quantify,
and may be described and evaluated in a more subjective way.  Guidance on
such evaluation is provided in Chapter 13-

     In determining an estimate of the cost of carrying out the plan, cost
estimates should be made for the following categories:

     - municipal facilities;
     - industrial facilities;
     - nonpoint source control;
     - urban and industrial stormwater systems;
     - residual waste control;
     - regulatory program;
     - program management.

     These cost assessments should be based on the best available data.
For example, cost estimates for municipal facilities should be  based on
engineering plans, specifications, and detailed cost estimates  when available.
Cost estimates for other abatement measures should also be based on engineering
designs and specifications to the extent that such details are  available in
the descriptions of proposed abatement measures.  Program management costs for
carrying out these plan elements should be distinguished by plan element or as
a separate category of administrative costs.  Where the proposed abatement
measures are only described in general terms, a general estimate of their
cost should be undertaken (see Chapter 11.4).  In addition, emphasis should
be placed on the cost estimates for plan elements to be implemented in the
first five years of the planning period.  Due to a number of factors, includ-
ing changes in economic forecasts and population projections, cost  estimates
beyond five years will be less accurate.  Greater attention, therefore,
should be given to refining the accuracy of the estimates for the initial
five years.

11.2 Basic Concepts in Estimating Costs

     A. Economic Cost

        In considering the cost of implementing a plan, it is necessary to
     distinguish between outlays and economic cost.  In many instances cash
                                 11-1

-------
outlays adequately represent costs, but sometimes a resource is
used, with no cash outlay.  The cost in such a case is the value
of the resource in its best alternative use -- its "opportunity
cost."  For example, acquiring public land for a treatment plant
may involve no cash outlay, but may have an opportunity cost in
terms of foregone recreation or commercial use.  If opportunity
costs are not considered, plan selection will  be biased towards those
options which do not require outlays, despite their other costs.
Moreover, the concept of opportunity cost accounts for the cost to
the community and Nation as a whole, not merely the cost to one
part or another.

B. Price Levels

   Where costs are estimated for future periods, they should be
stated in terms of base period dollars.  Future costs should not
reflect any expected overall increase in wages and prices, unless
there is reason to expect significant changes  in relative prices
during the planning period.  For example, due to the present energy
shortage, long term prospects are for higher energy costs.  While
it is difficult to predict how much costs will rise, alternative
plans should be tested for the effect of higher energy costs.

C. Interest Rates

   Discounting is a way to account for the opportunity cost of funds
invested in a project, in the sense that the funds could also  have
been used productively in the private sector of the economy or in
some other public project.  The applicable discount rate determines
the optimal choice between capital expenditures now versus higher
operating costs in the future, the optimal amount of reserve capacity
to build, and so on.

   In discounting, the costs of a plan are stated in terms of  their
present values.  That is, future costs are discounted at an applicable
rate of interest back to some intial starting date, and added  to the
initial capital costs.  Alternatively, the present values may  be
converted into equivalent annualized values.  Standard procedures
are described in engineering, economics, and business finance  texts.

   The interest rate to be used in evaluating water-related public
projects is prescribed by the Water Resources  Council, a Federal
inter-departmental group, in its "Principles and Standards for Plan-
ning Water and Related Land Resources", as amended by P.L. 93-251 (1974).
The rate specified by the Council is based on the interest rate on
Federal Securities with maturities of 15 years or more.  The rate to
be used for each fiscal year is determined by the Council on July 1.
For fiscal year 1976, the rate is 6 1/8%.
                               11-2

-------
11.3 Specific Cost  Questions

     A.  Sunk Costs  and  Salvage  Values

        Sunk costs  and  salvage  values  refer  to capital assets  in exist-
     ence at the beginning  or end  of a  program.

        Sunk Costs.   For  simplicity, investments and cost commitments
     made prior to  or concurrent with  the  planning study are regarded
     as  sunk costs  and  are  not  included  in the cost estimate.  Such
     investments and  costs  commitments  include, for example:   (1) invest-
     ments in existing  wastewater  treatment  facilities and associated
     lands to be incorporated into a plan; (2) outstanding bond indebted-
     ness.  However,  if inherited  assets were to be disposed of -- for
     instance, a small  treatment plant  scrapped and the land sold -- their
     sale value would be  treated as a  credit to that plan.

        Salvage Value.  At  the  end of  the  planning period, land for
     treatment works  (including that used  as part of the treatment process
     or  for ultimate  disposal or residues),  should be assumed  to have a
     salvage value  eaual  to its market  value at the time of the analysis,
     less any costs required to restore  the  lands to pre-project conditions.
     Salvage value  of land  reclaimed by  land treatment of sludge disposal
     should be estimated  as the value of the reclaimed land.   Rights-of-
     way and easements  should be assigned  a  salvage value not  greater
     than the market  value  at the  time of  the analysis.

        Permanent structures should be  assumed to have a salvage value
     at  the end of  the  planning period  if  those structures can be expected
     to  continue fulfilling their  planned  use.  Salvage value  should be
     based on the remaining functional  life  of the structure using a
     straight line  depreciation over the assumed functional life of the
     structure.   The  same approach applies to process and auxiliary equip-
     ment that will have  usable value at the end of the planning period.

     B.  Capital  and Operating Costs

        Elements of total cost  include capital construction cost, annual
     operation and maintenance  costs, and  equipment replacement costs.

        As set out  in EPA cost-effectiveness guidelines (40 CFR 35),
     capital  costs  for  facilities  include:   cost of land, relocation and
     right-of-way and easement  acquisition;  design engineering, field
     exploration, and engineering  services during construction; contractors'
     costs, including overhead  and profit; administrative and  legal  services,
     including cost of  bond sales; and startup costs such as operator train-
     ing.   Contingency  allowances  consistent with the level of complexity
     and detail  of the  cost estimate are also included.
                                 11-3

-------
   The capital costs of a plan would include those incurred by
both public agencies and private parties.   Treatment facilities
built by industrial  companies for direct discharges  or for pre-
treatment would be included in private costs.

   Where waste and flow reduction measures  are carried out by a
large number of industrial  and household dischargers, it  is diffi-
cult to estimate the private costs.   Unless the costs have a bearing
on the choice of a cost-effective plan, such estimates are unnecessary.

   Annual operating and maintenance  costs  for each alternate plan
must be established.  These costs should be adequate to ensure effect-
ive and dependable operation and should include all  costs  for operating
and maintaining the facilities under study  including power, labor,
parts, materials, overhead, chemicals and  repair or  replacement:  of
equipment and structures.

   Cost-effectiveness analysis requires establishing a service life
for each component and salvage values for  components having service
lives longer than the planning period.  The following service lives
are to be used, unless other periods can be justified:

                  Land                Permanent
                  Structures          30-50 years
                  Process Equipment    15-30 years
                  Auxiliary Equipment 10-15 years

C. Administrative Costs

   Water quality planning and management are likely  to include a
number of ongoing costs for activities not  always associated with
sewage facilities management.  These activities include monitoring
of streams, monitoring the waste characteristics of  major  industrial
dischargers, periodic checks of infiltration and inflow,  records of
storm and runoff characteristics, collecting and analyzing data  on
residential water use, continuing planning, coordination with other
planning, public participation, and  other  program management responsi-
bilities.  These functions are as important to the effectiveness of
a plan as the physical units in place.  The costs should  be included
in financial projections.  Recovery  of costs by direct charges --
e.g., permit fees, monitoring fees,  etc. -- should be considered and
evaluated.

D. Accuracy of Cost Estimates

   The accuracy of cost estimates for all  point and  nonpoint elements
of the plans should be sufficient to assure the selection  of the most
cost-effective solution.
                               11-4

-------
        The cost estimates should be sufficiently refined to provide a
     basis for the 5-year financial  budget discussed in Chapter 10.
     Such estimates might be based upon preliminary engineering layouts
     and designs, taking account of facilities in place.  As discussed
     in Chapter 10, financial  budgets should cover the first five years;
     therefore, the level of detail  for cost estimates should be greater
     for that period.

     E. Present Values

        Using the interest rate discussed in 11.2.C., the costs for
     construction and operations, by year, should be discounted to the
     proposed plan initiation  date,  to obtain the present value (or,
     what is much the same thing, the annualized  value) of the plan.
     An example is given in EPA Guidance for Facilities Planning, May,  1975.

11.4 Generalized Cost Estimation
     As explained in Chapter 3.3.C, in some cases there may be good reason
to develop particular plan elements at a more general  level of detail  than
would be needed if that element were to be immediately implemented.  In
such cases, a generalized cost estimate for abating particular forms of
pollution would be sufficient.  The following guidance discusses  methods
for undertaking generalized cost estimates.

     For some cost categories, such as for municipal  facilities,  there are
recognized methods of cost estimation.  For other categories,  such as non-
point source control, estimating procedures are not as well developed. All
of the categories listed in the introduction to this  chapter are  discussed
below.  More definitive guidance can be provided for those categories
where more recognized cost estimation procedures exist.

     A. Municipal Facilities Needs

        Where facilities or areawide planning is in progress,  the required
     cost effective analyses can be used in cost estimation.  For specific
     facilities, the best sources are proposed contract costs  from completed
     plans and specifications.  At a less advanced stage in facilities
     planning, cost estimates based on firm or preliminary engineering
     estimates, and costs of recently constructed facilities of a similar
     nature should be used when available.

        In the absence of completed facilities or areawide plans  and
     firm or preliminary engineering estimates, a cost estimation procedure
     must be used.  The generalized estimate of costs  resulting from the
     State WQM Plan does not constitute a final decision governing facil-
     ities planning efforts.  Rather, they represent  the best  estimate
     for the future project to be used in the absence  of better estimates.
                                  11-5

-------
   The treatment of wastewaters from various collection systems
at a single treatment facility can take advantage of the economies
of a large scale operation.   Generally, justification of region-
alization requires a detailed analysis.  The time for such an
analysis probably will not be available in the context of a pre-
liminary cost estimate.  If the need for several  facilities in a
limited area strongly suggests a centralized treatment plant, then
this possibility should be reflected in the cost  estimates.  This
option may not be evident at the local  level; therefore, decisions
may have to be made at the basin level.

B. Industrial Facilities Needs
   A generalized cost estimate for treating industrial  wastes
discharged to a municipal  system should be included in  the estimate
of municipal needs.  In those cases where industrial  wastes are
treated and discharged directly to receiving waters,  an estimate of
the cost should be included in the plan.  Similarly,  the plan should
identify pretreatment costs borne by industry.

   In many instances, it will be difficult to estimate  industrial
costs due to uncertainty as to the type of industry that might locate
in the planning area.  The cost estimate should be based on the best
estimate of industrial growth and the types of industries likely to
locate in the area.  Estimates of the volume and nature of the wastes
should take into consideration estimates of future processing and
control methods.  Information on the range and average  treatment costs
for particular industries in available in the Economic  Analysis series
developed by EPA for Proposed Effluent Guidelines for various indus-
trial categories.

C. Nonpoint Source and Residual Waste Control Needs

   Cost estimates of nonpoint source and residual waste control needs
should include estimates of cost for both structural  and nonstructural
control measures.  Costs associated with structural measures include
land acquisition and construction of facilities.  Nonstructural costs
include staffing, administration of programs, and costs of compensa-
tion of landowners (if required) affected by regulatory measures.

   The cost of existing programs in the planning area,  elsewhere in
the State, or in other States can serve as a basis for cost estimation,
Recent studies often provide information on abatement costs and can
also serve as bases for estimates.

   The cost estimates should be by agency and activity presented in
5-year increments over the planning period.
                            11-6

-------
D. Urban and Industrial Stormwater Systems

   The cost estimates for urban and industrial stormwater systems
should be disaggregated to show:  (1) cost of required improvements
to existing systems; and (2) cost of systems needed for areas not
served, over at least the 20-year planning period (in 5-year incre-
ments).  Included in the cost assessment for urban and industrial
stormwater systems should be a generalized estimate of the effect
on capital construction costs brought about by the use of non-
structural controls as well as capital  and annual operating costs
of such control programs.  EPA is in the process of developing a
cost estimation procedure for stormwater systems.  The procedure
should be available for use in Spring,  1976.  If estimates are made
using other procedures, a discussion of the chosen procedure and
reasons for using it should be included with the cost estimate.

E. Regulatory Program and Monitoring

   Costs associated with a regulatory program include staffing,
administration, and capital costs (e.g., land acquisition or land-
owner compensation).  Many of the regulatory program costs will be
the same as those included in the costs for nonpoint source control
needs.  For example, certain regulatory actions over silvicultural
practices may be part of the plan.  Where such actions could be
listed as part of the nonpoint source control or as part of the
regulatory program, the cost estimates  should be included with the
nonpoint source control needs.

   As was the case with nonpoint source controls, cost estimates
should be based on data from existing programs, where available.
Data from programs in other States may be used but should be ad-
justed to reflect differences in economic conditions.

F. Program Management

   Cost estimates for program management activities for those
elements of the State WQM Plan for which generalized estimates are
made should also be developed.  Program management activities would
include costs of monitoring, technical  assistance, administration of
regulatory programs, coordination with  other planning activities, etc,
                            11-7

-------
                                 CHAPTER 12
                         TECHNIQUES FOR COORDINATION
12.1 Introduction

     Water quality management is affected by broad policies concerning land
use, regional  development, and the many functional planning activities carried
out in a State.  As a result, it will  be necessary to coordinate State WQM
Plan development with related policies, planning activities and programs.   Of
particular importance are those related programs listed in SI30.34.   Included
in Chapter 2 is a discussion of the requirements for coordination.   This
chapter outlines techniques for coordination and describes how they  may be
integrated into the planning process.

12.2 Coordination Techniques

     A.  Planning Agency Designation

         In many instances, agencies which may be designated by the  governor to
     be responsible for preparing and coordinating State WQM Plans will
     also be responsible for other related programs.  Such programs  may include
     air quality management, land use planning, coastal zone management, water
     supply, solid waste management etc.  In making designations, governors
     should take into consideration other related activities of the  agencies
     to be designated.  Coordination between related programs  can be improved
     when responsibility for the programs is lodged in the same agency.

     B.  Planning Area Designation -- Geographic Boundaries

         As discussed in Chapter 2, planning area selection can be based on
     hydrologic boundaries or political boundaries, or a combination of these.
     Whichever approach is chosen, consideration should also be given to other
     programs in the area.  For example, an area may be involved in  Air Quality
     Maintenance Area (AQMA) Planning.  In determining the State WQM boundaries,
     it may be possible to overlap considerably with the AQMA boundaries.   As
     discussed below, this could facilitate the development of integrated  work
     plans and use of common data bases.  While it will be very difficult  to
     make boundaries coterminous, it may be possible to achieve a considerable
     overlap.  In deciding upon planning area boundaries, major planning
     activities and programs should be reviewed to determine if boundaries can
     be designed to coincide with those of other programs.

     C.  State/EPA Agreement

         The State/EPA agreement on level of detail and timing is,  in effect,
     a work program for the State WQM Plan effort.  An agreement should be
     drawn up for each basin or approved planning area.  The agreement will
                                      12-1

-------
set forth specific responsibilities  and tasks  needed  to  carry  out  the
State WQM Plan.   Some of the tasks will be identical  or  similar  to
those carried out under other programs.  This  is  especially  true of data
collection and projection of population, land  use,  and economic  conditions.
State WQM Plans  should utilize applicable information and  analyses from
other programs and should identify this in the State/EPA Agreement.
Similarly, the planning agencies  will  be producing  outputs that  other
programs can use.  This, too, should be identified  in the  agreement.   In
some cases, it will be possible to carry out tasks  jointly with  other  pro-
grams, especially data collection, projection, and  analysis.   To the
extent possible, specific tasks that will be coordinated should  be identified
in the agreement.  Coordination with other programs will be  easier if
specific responsibilities are identified early and  agreed  upon.

D.  Intergovernmental Agreements

    After defining specific responsibilities and  tasks,  intergovernmental
agreements should be made to establish the responsibilities  formally.
Such agreements  may include contractual relationships, memoranda of
understanding, joint exercise of  powers, and/or delegation of  responsibility.
These are discussed with respect  to  plan implementation  in Chapter 9.

E.  Data

    The data which will be needed to prepare a State  WQM Plan  will  be
similar or identical to that needed  or produced in  other plans.  This
is especially true of the population, economic, land  use and air and
water quality data.  The coordination between  plans can  be greatly
enhanced if consistent data bases and projections are used.  To  ensure
such consistency, it is often helpful  if a common classification system
is used so that  data can be compiled using a similar  format.   Planning
agencies should  integrate their data requirements before gathering data,
so that information is transferable.

    The feasibility of coordinating  data collection and  projection
depends on the timing of the planning efforts. If  one  is  done much
earlier than others, more recent  or  comprehensive data may become
available by the time the latter  planning effort  is underway.   If  this
is the case, there may be adequate reason for  modifying  data and
projections.

    Another problem develops when the planning areas  overlap but are
not identical.  In this case the  projections in the overlapping  areas
should be the same and those for  the adjacent  areas should not conflict.
That is, the growth rates for the entire area  should  be  consistent.
                                 12-2

-------
    Predictions of pollution levels will  be based in part on  population
projections.  These predictions will affect the selection of  alternative
implementation strategies, which could in turn, necessitate modification
of the projections.  This iterative process of revising projections  must
also be coordinated so that conflicts do  not arise.

F.  Representation

    Periodic consultation between agencies responsible for planning  will
help ensure that plans are consistent.  It is important, therefore,  that
representatives of the planning agencies  responsible for various  pro-
grams be included in any advisory group which might  be created to
ensure periodic consultation between the  agencies.  The Part  130  regu-
lations require the establishment of at' least one policy advisory committee.
Representatives of programs with a major  relationship to the  State WQM Plan
should be members of any advisory committees which are used.   In  addition,  the
staffs of the planning agencies should develop a close working relationship.
For example, each agency could designate  specific individuals to  serve as
liaison to help ensure that necessary coordination is carried out in a timely
fashion.  This would also help in identifying possible conflicts  and resolving
them informally as they arise.

G.  Evaluation of Alternative Strategies

    Many of the management strategies which will be  adopted as a  result
of State WQM Planning will have an impact on other programs.   The stra-
tegies resulting from other programs may  affect the  development of
State WQM Plans.  It is important, therefore, that the evaluation of
alternative strategies include an analysis of impacts on the  activities
of related programs.  This is especially  true of other environmental
programs, in particular those dealing with air quality.  Many of  the
measures incorporated in State WQM Plans  to control  point and nonpoint
sources affect land use which could, in turn, affect air quality. For
example, sewer interceptor and facilities location,  restricting the
location of industrial development to areas where the receiving waters
have assimilative capacity, and restricting development in areas  where
significant nonpoint pollution would result, are decisions which  could
affect air quality.  However, not all interaction between State WQM
Plans and air quality plans need result in conflict.  Both plans, for
example, should favor better management of construction activities.
Measures such as minimal exposure periods for active construction areas,
or utilization of staged grading, seeding and sodding procedures  would
reduce both runoff and fugitive dust problems.  In general, State WQM
Plans should take advantage of complementary strategies by evaluating
                                 12-3

-------
the effectiveness of various alternatives to determine their impact on
other related programs.

    The planning agencies should make sure that they inform one another
about alternatives being considered and offer one another an opportunity
to review and comment on alternatives.   Such comments should be consid-
ered during the evaluation process so that alternatives for one program
could not be selected that would conflict with implementation of the
plans for other programs.  This review and comment should be undertaken
by the planning staffs and the advisory groups to the planning agencies.

H.  Reporting

    In order to keep the various planning agencies posted on current
developments, there should be some type of periodic or nrilepost report-
ing.  This could take place quarterly or at the beginning and completion
of some subtask (e.g., data collection, projections, analysis of water
and air quality, etc.).  Informal  contacts would, of course, be more
frequent.  Periodic or milepost reporting, however, would provide formal
documentation of the communication which had taken place.

    In addition, a report should be periodically sent to the !:PA
regional office.  The report should describe how representatives of
related programs are involved in an advisory capacity, any major meetings
which have been held, what information  has been provided to each program,
how consistency in data and projections is being achieved, and any poten-
tial conflicts which may develop.   This should be done at a minimum
of every 3 months in the format of the  quarterly interim progress reports.

I.  Resolving Conflicts

    If potential conflicts arise during plan development, it is expected
that the planning agencies responsible  will attempt to resolve them
informally.  If this is not possible, in designated areas the conflict
should be referred up to the State level where the agencies responsible
for administering the respective programs would resolve it.  As a final
resort, conflicts should be referred to the Regional Administrator for
mediation.

    In the case that other federal agencies were involved in a dispute,
then EPA should meet with representatives of the affected agency to review
the situation and whenever possible to formulate recommendations for
resolving the dispute.
                                  12-4

-------
J.  Program Approval

    After completion, the planning agencies responsible for related
programs should review each other's plans to ensure that there are
no conflicts.  If the agencies have been involved in plan development,
no conflicts should arise when it comes time to review the plan.   In
its review, EPA will evaluate the consistency of the State WOM Plan
with other programs.  Comments provided by the agencies responsible
for the programs will be a major input to EPA's review.

K.  Procedures for Coordination of Planning Programs

    EPA has developed agreements and memoranda of understanding con-
cerning coordination of a number of planning programs that affect water
quality management planning.  These agreements and memoranda utilize
many of the plan coordination approaches discussed in this chapter.
However, greater detail on coordinating particular aspects of each pro-
gram with water quality planning may be found in the following:

        Interagency agreement to relate HUD 701 planning and EPA  208
        planning, March 24, 1975.

        Integrating 208 Planning and 701 Comprehensive Planning.
        Program Guidance Memorandum AM-9, May 2, 1975.

        Coordination of EPA Water Programs and Coastal Zone Management
        Programs.  Program Guidance Memorandum AM-11, September 29, 1975.

        Coordinating 208 Planning and Air Quality Maintenance Area
        Planning.  Program Guidance Memorandum AM-14, October 30, 1975.

        Joint agreement for interagency coordination of areawide  waste
        treatment management planning assistance to state and local
        governments between the Environmental Protection Agency and
        the Department of the Army, November 22, 1974.
                                12-5

-------
                             CHAPTER 13

        ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT EVALUATION
13.1 Purpose

     This chapter provides guidance for integrating environmental, social,
and economic impact evaluation into the planning process.  It is intended
to meet, in part, the requirements of Sec. 102(2)(c) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and regulations issued pursuant to that
Act.  It is also intended to meet the requirements of Sec.  208(b)(2)(E)
which requires "the identification of the economic, social, and environmental
impact of carrying out the plan	"

     The evaluation must be viewed as an integral  part of the planning
process.  As such, it will be performed throughout the process rather
than after the selection of the plan, with citizens and local units of
government afforded the opportunity to participate in impact evaluation
from the beginning of the planning process.  Affected citizens and units
of government will thus be better able to analyze the various alternatives,
to identify specific plan impacts, and to provide meaningful suggestions
and recommendations.
13.2 Environmental, Social and Economic Impact Evaluation Process

     A.  Inventory Existing Conditions

         The purpose of inventorying existing conditions is twofold:
     (1) to aid in goal and problem identification; and (2) to serve as
     a basis for the analysis and comparison of alternatives.   At a
     minimum, the inventory should encompass the planning area and other
     areas that would be affected by the plan.  For example, land disposal
     sites for effluent or sludge, other wastewater reuse sites, and the
     down-stream river corridor that would be affected by effective water
     quality management should be included.  The inventory will undoubtedly
     require additions as new problem areas are identified in  the planning
     process.

         Most of the data needed for the inventory will be readily avail-
     able in existing documents and may have been gathered for use elsewhere
     in the planning process.  This would be true, for example, for most
     of the population, land use, and hydrological data.  Additionally,
     items four through fourteen in the inventory (p.3-2) are  impact
     categories which may be used in the plan selection process (Chapter 14)
     to determine differences among the plan alternatives.
                                   13-1

-------
    Only that data which is relevant to the analysis of alternatives
or determination of impacts should be included.   Thus, the inventory
may include but not necessarily be limited to the following:

    1.  Climate and precipitation;

    2.  Topography;

    3.  Geology;

    4.  Hydrology (surface and groundwater):

        a.  water quality
        b.  water quantity                                                    ^
        c.  water quality and quantity problems
        d.  water uses
        e.  water quality management
        f.  flood hazards;

    5.  Biology:

        a.  rare and endangered species
        b.  fish, shellfish and wildlife habitats including nursery
            and spawning areas
        c.  fish, shellfish and wildlife community                           ^
        d.  benthic community structure                                      •

    6.  Air quality;

    7.  Land uses:

        a.  existing land uses
        b.  land use planning and controls
        c.  amount, type, and intensity of growth (The growth data
            should be of recent origin.  There is no necessity to
            examine growth trends further back than 1960).
        d.  soil types, permeability, and erodability
        e.  significant environmentally sensitive areas;

    8.   Wastewater management resources:

        a.  energy (power)
        b.  chemicals
        c.  land commitment;                                                   •

    9.  Population levels:

        a.  current
        b.  projected (5, 10, 15, and 20 years);
                              13-2

-------
    10.  Economic activity (gross assessment):

         a.  income per capita
         b.  agriculture
         c.  mining
         d.  manufacturing
         e.  service;

    11.  Employment trends including regional  availability of
         skilled manpower for treatment plant operation and
         monitoring;

    12.  Other local, state,  and federal  projects having major
         interaction with proposed water  quality actions;

    13.  Public health;

    14.  Aesthetics:

         a.  recreational accessibility and activities
         b.  unique archeological, historical,  scientific, and
             cultural areas
         c.  noise pollution.

    The inventory should also include identification of adopted
goals and pertinent constraints.  Goals might typically include:

    1.   Preservation of high quality surface water;

    2.   Preservation of coastal or other wetlands;

    3.   Preservation or enhancement of fish,  shellfish and wildlife;

    4.   Enhancement of municipal services.

    Examples of constraints include:

    1.   Air quality regulations and implementation  plans;

    2.   Local climate, topography, soils, etc.;

    3.   Restrictions on flood plain use  or other land uses.

B.   Evaluate the Existing Situation

    Based upon the inventory, a brief analysis  of the existing situation
should be conducted to prioritize pollution problems and sensitive
impact areas.   This prioritization which  will  be a primary concern during
the remainder of the evaluation will require participation of the public
and local government agencies.
                              13-3

-------
     C.  Develop Baseline Projection

         The inventory and evaluation of the existing situation will  serve
     as inputs into the development of a baseline projection.   Construction
     of a baseline projection of relevant environmental,  social, and
     economic factors (see Table 14.1) will  enable evaluation  of each
     alternative.  The baseline projections  should be quantitative when data
     are readily available.  In other cases, it should be qualitative.   The
     baseline projection can be established  by extrapolating present,  indi-
     cator trends over the planning period.   In making this projection,
     it should be assumed that no additional water quality actions will be
     taken other than those that have already been approved.

     D.  Screen Options and Subplans

         Both point and nonpoint control options as well  as continuous
     point source, intermittent point source, and nonpoint source subplans
     should be screened according to the factors set forth in  Chapters  7
     and 8.

     E.  Evaluate Alternatives

         After the alternatives have been developed, each of them should
     be evaluated by comparing its impact to the baseline projection.
     Special consideration should be given to those sensitive  impact  areas
     identified in the evaluation of the existing situation.

         A complete environmental assessment of each alternative is not
     necessary, although the impact of both  the structural and nonstructural
     aspects of the plan should be considered in every case.  Table 14.1
     contains a list of those environmental, social and economic factors
     believed to be generally most important.  However, discretion should
     be employed when using this table.  When there .is no difference  among
     alternatives, a statement to that effect is sufficient.  Similarly, a
     statement will suffice when an alternative will have no perceptible
     impact on a given factor.

         Special attention should be given to long-term impacts, irreversi-
     ble impacts, and indirect impacts such  as induced development.  Resource
     and energy use associated with each alternative should also be high-
     lighted.  The results should be displayed in a format for use in public
     meetings and other forms of public participation.

13.3 Environmental Effects of the Selected Plan

     The results of the environmental, social, and economic impact evaluation
will be used in the plan selection process (Chapter 14).   Once a plan has
been selected, a complete description of the impact that the selected plan


                                   13-4

-------
will have on the area's environment should be completed.  The vast majority
of the data required to do this should be readily available from the eval-
uations already performed.  This more detailed evaluation should describe
the impact of the proposed structural and nonstructural  actions.  Whenever
possible, the impact of each action on each affected environmental, social,
or economic category (see Table 14.1) should be described and displayed.
However, if more than one action affects a category, the cumulative impact
may be described.  Impacts may be categorized as:

     1.  Primary (direct) or secondary (induced);

     2.  Beneficial or adverse;

     3.  Short or long term;

     4.  Avoidable or unavoidable;

     5.  Reversible or irreversible.

     Included under irreversible impacts should be an evaluation of any
irreversible commitments of resources including energy.   (See S6.304 (c-f)
of 40 CFR Part 6 for an explanation of these terms and examples.)

     While emphasis should be given to the cumulative impacts of all elements
of the plan, more localized impacts of specific plan elements, such as
treatment plant locations, interceptor sewers, and industrial site locations,
should also be assessed and highlighted when judged significant.  Greater
emphasis should be given to the localized impacts of individual  projects
anticipated to be developed during the initial five years of plan implementation.
                                   13-5

-------
                             CHAPTER 14

          COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES AND SELECTION OF PLAN
14.1 Purpose

     This chapter provides guidance on the comparison of alternative plans
leading to the selection of a State water quality management plan.   The
process presented here assumes that each of the alternatives, if implemented,
would meet all regulatory requirements and comply with appropriate  goals
and objectives within specified limits of technical  reliability.   Plans
are to be compared in terms of the defined criteria  of cost effectiveness
as discussed in Chapter 1, feasibility of plan implementation,  and  public
acceptability.  Emphasis will also be placed upon drawing together  the
evaluations already completed so that the alternatives can be more  easily
discussed and compared.  Finally, while public participation is necessary
throughout the planning process, it is essential  that the public be involved
to a significant degree during this stage.


14.2 The Plan Selection Process

     A.   Assess Alternative Plans

          No rigorous analytical method exists which will readily identify
     the best plan for the area.  As discussed in previous chapters, many
     factors should be considered in comparing the alternatives.   While
     some of the factors, in particular cost assessments, can be quantified,
     others can only be qualitatively assessed based upon professional
     judgement, and the views of the public.  Plan assessment involves the
     comparison of all key factors deemed pertinent for reliable decision
     making.  Table 14.1 contains a list of those which are believed to be
     generally most important.  The inputs for that table are to be devel-
     oped in the technical planning process (Chapter 3.8), the step at
     which alternative plans are evaluated in light of information  on
     their cost, technical reliability, environmental, social and economic
     impact, implementation feasibility and public acceptability.  The
     effects of the alternatives should be assessed quantitatively  whenever
     possible.  In all other cases a qualitative assessment should  be made.

          Representatives from all affected groups should be involved in
     the assessment of the alternative proposals.  In most areas, affected
     groups would include conservation groups, economic interests,  local
     elected officials, planning agencies, state departments of health,
     water pollution control, and natural resources, the regional office
     of EPA and the Policy Advisory Committee.  The plan approval and
     implementation process will be more efficient if the people respon-
     sible for carrying it out fully understand the issues and contribute  to
     the assessment and recommendation of alternatives.


                                  14-1

-------
B.   Develop Recommended Plan

     Once the alternative plans have been assessed, the planning
agency should be in a good position to compare the alternatives and
develop a recommended plan.  A logical approach for comparing the
alternatives would be to identify initially that alternative which
will achieve water quality objectives at minimum monetary cost.  This
least cost plan can serve as a base against which the increased costs
and additional effects of other alternatives can be compared.  The
major environmental, social and economic impacts of this least cost
plan should be listed, including a discussion of the institutional
and financial issues that would be raised if the plan were recommended.
Most of the required impact information should be contained in Table
14.1.  A suggested format for displaying the least cost plan is shown
in Table 14'.2.

     The next step should be the identification of the incremental
monetary cost and incremental impacts of each of the remaining alter-
native plans in relation to the base plan.  Information contained in
Table 14.1 would provide the basis for this incremental evaluation.
Description of alternatives should include the plan elements (such as
construction, zoning, operations, etc.) and measures or statements of
the changes in the impacts of those plan elements.  In addition to
the environmental, social, and economic impact and institutional and
financial issues, additional benefits that could be gained or unde-
sirable situations that could be avoided should be described.  The
alternatives should be described in such a way as to make comparisons
with the additional costs required as direct as possible.  The results
may be summarized in the format of Table 14.3.

     The planning agency should then conduct workshops for the elected
officials who will be reviewing and commenting on the proposed plan to
fully inform them of the consequences of implementing any of the alter-
native plans.  The agency should also take note of their
responses to the alternatives to see if the alternatives can be changed
to improve plan acceptability.  Since these workshops and the public
hearings to follow could very well result in requirements for sub-
stantial changes in the design of plan elements and for further analy-
sis of additional impacts, the agency should schedule resource; expen-
ditures to be able to respond fully to the need for additional modifi-
cations.

     At the conclusion of the workshops, the planning agency should
recommend a single plan.  The plan elements, costs, impacts, and
implementation issues can be summarized in the format shown in Table
14.2, accompanied by a brief report summarizing the process followed,
the alternatives considered, and the criteria used to reach a final
recommendation.  The report and charts should be suitable for use at
public hearings.
                            14-2

-------
C.   Hold Public Hearings to Present Proposed Plan

     The planning agency should conduct formal  public hearings on
the proposed plan and the alternatives considered in its development.
The planning agency should then respond to the issues raised at the
hearings and modify the proposed plan if appropriate (as judged by
the agency).  The planning agency will then submit the proposed plan
to the appropriate governing bodies for review and recommendations.
                             14-3

-------
                            TABLE 14.1

              COSTS AND  EFFECTS  OF ALTERNATIVE  PLANS


                                                    Alternative Plans

Significant Effects                               P-1     P-2      P-3

1.    Water Quality Goals

     A.  ^Contribution to goals and
          objectives  of the Act.

     B.   Contributions to other water-
          related goals of the planning
          area.

2.    Technical Reliability

     A.   Frequency of plant upsets

     B.   Frequency of spills

     C.   Frequency and effects of
          combined sewer overflows

     D.   Nonpoint source control

     E.   Regional availability of
          skilled manpower for treat-
          ment plant operation and
          monitoring

3.    Monetary Costs

     A.   Capital costs including discounted
          deferred costs

          (1)  public
          (2)  private
          (3)  total

     B.   O.M. & R. Costs

          (1)  public
          (2)  private
          (3)  total

     C.   Net revenue  (public)

     D.   Overhead and plan management


                               14-4

-------
                         TABLE 14.1  (cont)

               COSTS AND EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS


Significant Effects                                 Alternative Plans

     E.    Total average annual costs              P-l     P-2     P-3

          (1)  public
          (2)  private
          (3)  total

4.   Environmental Effects

     A.    Hydrology (surface and groundwater)

          (1)  water quality
          (2)  water quantity
          (3)  water quality and quantity problems
          (4)  water uses
          (5)  flood hazards

     B.    Biology

          (1)  rare and endangered species
          (2)  fish, shellfish and wildlife habitats; including
               nursery and spawning areas
          (3)  fish, shellfish and wildlife community
          (4)  benthic community structure

     C.    Air quality

     D.    Land

          (1)  change in land uses
          (2)  land use planning and controls
          (3)  amount, type and intensity of
               growth (relate to land  use)
          (4)  soil erosion damage
          (5)  significant environmentally
               sensitive areas

     E.    Wastewater management resources

          (1)  energy (power)
          (2)  chemicals
          (3)  land commitment for planned
               features including  sludge disposal  sites

5.   Social and Economic Effects

     A.    Population changes (5, 10, 15, and 20 year
          projections)
                               14-5

-------
                          TABLE 14.1  (cont)

               COSTS AND EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS


Significant Effects                                 Alternative Plans

     B.   Changes in economic activity            P-1     _p_-2_     P-3
          where appropriate

          (1)  income per capita
          (2)  agriculture
          (3)  mining
          (4)  manufacturing
          (5)  services

     C.   Dislocation of individuals, businesses,
          or public services

     D.   Impact on other local, state and
          federal projects having major
          interaction with proposed water
          quality actions

     E.   Public health

     F.   Aesthetics

          (1)  recreational accessibility and
               activities
          (2)  unique archeological, historical,
               scientific and cultural areas
          (3)  noise pollution

6.    Implementation Feasibility

     A.   Legal authority

     'B.   Financial  capacity

     C.   Practicability

     D.   Coordinative capacity

     E.   Public accountability

7.    Public Acceptability
                               14-6

-------
PLAN ELEMENTS
   1.
   2.
   3.
TOTAL COST  $_

IMPACTS
                                 TABLE  14.2

                               LEAST COST PLAN
(A summary list of planning, construction, zoning,
sludge and effluent disposal, operations, moni-
toring actions, etc., indicating their geographic
sites).
                                 DESCRIPTION
Economic

   1.

   2.

  .3.

Social

   1.

   2.

   3.

Environmental

   1.

   2.

   3.
IMPLEMENTATION

   (Institutional  and  financial  issues.)
                                    14-7

-------
            TABLE  14.3
ALTERNATIVE LEAST COST  PLAN MODIFICATIONS

Plan Elements
1.
2.
3.


Least
Cost
Alternative




Alternative
A




Impacts




Cost
Increase




Alternative
B




Impacts




Cost
Increase




                 14-8

-------
                                  GLOSSARY


The Act - Public Law 92-500.  "This Act may be cited as  the 'Federal
          Water Pollution Control  Act Amendments of 1972.'" (Act,
          Section 1).

Base level technology - Minimum level of treatment required by the Act.

Basin -   The term 'basin1  means the streams,  rivers, tributaries, and
          lakes and the total  land and surface water area contained in
          one of the major or minor basins defined by EPA,  or any  other
          basin unit as agreed upon by the State(s) and  the Regional
          Administrator.

Best Available Technology (BAT) - "Not later than July 1, 1983, effluent
          limitations for categories and classes of point sources, other
          than publicly owned treatment works...shall require application
          of the best available technology economically  achievable for
          such category or class,  which will result in reasonable  further
          progress toward the national goal of eliminating  the discharge
          of all pollutants as determined in accordance  with regulations
          issued by the Administrator pursuant to section 304(b)(2) of
          this Act...." (Act,  Section 301(b)(2)(A)).

Best Practicable Control Technology (BPCT) - "Not later  than July  1,
          1977, effluent limitations for point sources,  other than
          publicly owned treatment works...shall require the application
          of the best practicable control technology currently available
          as defined by the Administrator pursuant to section 304(b)  of
          this Act	" (Act,  Section 301(b)(l)(A)).  This  is also referred
          to as Best Practicable Technology (BPT).

Best Practicable Haste  Treatment Technology (BPWTT) - "Waste treatment
          management plans and practices shall provide for  the application
          of the best practicable waste treatment technology before any
          discharge into receiving waters, including reclaiming and
          recycling of water and confined disposal of pollutants so they
          will not migrate to cause water or other environmental pollution...."
          (Act, Section 201(b)).

Capital intensive - Measure requiring initial  capital outlays for  its
          development and relatively little cost for operation and
          maintenance.

Combined sewer - "A sewer intended to serve as a sanitary sewer and a
          storm sewer,  or as an industrial sewer and a storm sewer."
          (40 CFR 35.905-2).

-------
Discharge of pollutants -  "The  term 'discharge  of a  pollutant'  and  the
          term 'discharge of pollutants'  each means (A)  any  addition
          of any pollutant to navigable waters from any  point  source,
          (B) any addition of any pollutant  to the waters  of the contig-
          uous zone or the ocean from any point  source other than  a
          vessel  or other floating craft."  (Act,  Section  502(12)).

Effjuent 1imitation - "The term  'effluent limitation' means  any
          restriction established by a State or  the Administrator
          on quantities, rates,  and concentrations of chemical,
          physical, biological,  and other constituents which are
          discharged from point  sources into navigable waters,, the
          waters of the contiguous zone,  or  the  ocean, including
          schedules of compliance."  (Act, Section 502 (11)).

Effluent limited segments - "Any segment  where it  is  known that  water
          quality is meeting and will  continue to  meet applicable water
          quality standards or where there is adequate demonstration
          that water quality will meet applicable  water  quality  standards
          after the application  of the effluent  limitations  required by
          sections 301(b)(l)(B)  and 301(b)(2)(A) of the  Act."  (40 CFR
          130.2(o)(2)).

Facilities plan - The facility plan is the first step in a three step
          process required to complete treatment works with  federal
          grants from the Environmental Protection Agency.  It is to
          assure that treatment  works built  under  this program are
          environmentally sound  and cost-effective.

Infiltration - "The water entering a sewer system, including sewer
          service connections, from the ground,  through  such means as,
          but not limited to, defective pipes, pipe joints,  connections,
          and manhole walls.  Infiltration does  not include, and is
          distinguished from, inflow."  (40  CFR  35.905-9).

Inflow - "The water discharged into a sewer  system, including  service
          connections, from such sources  as, but not  limited to, roof
          leaders, cellar, yard  and area  drains, foundation  drains,
          cooling water dischargers, drains  from spring  and  swampy               ,
          areas, manhole covers, cross connections from  storm  sewers and
          combined sewers, catch basins,  storm waters, surface runoff,
          street wash waters, or drainage.  Inflow does  not  include, and
          is distinguished from, infiltration."   (40  CFR 35.905-11).

Inplace pollution source - Time  buildup of pollutant  load  deposited
          in a receiving water bed and existing  as a  load  upon that
          receiving water.

Interim Facility - A temporary treatment  facility, either  public or  private,
          designed for a useful  life of  usually  less  than  five years,  and
          with a treatment capacity usually  less than five million gallons      m
          per day.                                                              ™

-------
Land use - The physical  mode of utilization  or conservation  of a  given
          land area at a given point in time.

Land use controls - Methods for regulating the uses  to which a given
          land area may be put, including such things  as  zoning,  sub-
          division regulation, and flood-plain regulation.

Materials balance - An illustration of the principle of conservation
          of matter; that is, an accounting  may be performed of all
          transfers of mass from one point or  state  to other points or
          states, such that the total  original mass  is entirely accounted
          for.

Maximum daily load - "Each plan shall  include  for each water quality
          segment, or appropriate portion thereof, the total  allowable
          maximum daily load of relevant pollutants  during critical
          flow conditions for each specific  water quality criterion
          being violated or expected to be violated."  (40 CFR 131.11(f)(!)),

Navigable waters - "The term 'navigable waters' means  the waters  of the
          United States, including the territorial seas."  (Act,  Section
          502(7)).

1983 goals - Pertains to goals outlined in Section 101(a) and elsewhere  in
          the Act.

1977 goals - Pertains to the July 1, 1977 milestone  set by the Act,
          particularly in terms of treatment technology and  limitations.

Nonpoint source - Generalized discharge of waste which cannot be  located
          as to a specific source into a water body, as outlined  in
          Section 304(e) of the Act.

Permits - "The Administration may...issue a  permit for the discharge of
          any pollutant, or combination of pollutants. ..upon condition
          that such discharge will meet either all applicable requirements
          under Sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, and  403 of this  Act, or
         prior to the taking of necessary implementing actions relating
          to all such requirements, such conditions  as the Administrator
          determines necessary to carry out  the provisions of this Act."
          (Act, Section 402(a)(l)).  "The Administrator shall authorize
          a state, which he determines has the capability of administering
          a permit program which will  carry  out the  objective of  this Act,
          to issue permits for discharges into the navigable waters within
          the jurisdiction of such state."  (Act, Section 402(a)(5)).  The
          permit program is a part of the National Pollutant Discharge
          Elimination System (NPDES).

-------
Planning process - Strategy for directing  resources,  establishing
          priorities,  scheduling actions,  and  reporting  programs toward
          achievement  of program objectives.

Point source - "The term 'point source1 means  any  discernible, confined
          and discrete conveyance,  including but not  limited to any  pipe,
          ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete  fissure, con-
         tainer, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or
         vessel  or other floating craft, from  which pollutants are or may
          be discharged."  (Act, Section 502(14)).

Pollutant - "The term  'pollutant1 means dredged spoil, solid waste,
          incinerator  residue,  sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions,
          chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials,
          heat,  wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt
          and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged
          into water."  (Act,  Section 502(6)).

Pretreatment - "The Administrator shall...publish  proposed regulations
         establishing  pretreatment  standards for introduction of pollu-
          tants  into treatment  works...which are publicly  owned for  those
          pollutants which are  determined  not  to be susceptible to treatment
          by such treatment works or which would-interfere with the  oper-
          ation  of such treatment works."  (Act, Section 307(b)(l)).  "Not
          later  than July 1, 1977...in the case of discharge into a
          publicly owned treatment  works...shall require compliance  with
          any applicable pretreatment requirements...under section 307
          of this Act."  (Act,  Section 301(b)(l)(A)).

Residual waste - Those solid,  liquid, or sludge substances from man's
          activities in the urban,  agricultural, mining  and industrial
          environment  not discharged to water  after collection and necess-
          ary treatment.

Secondary treatment -  "There shall  be required...for  publicly owned
          treatment works in existence on  July 1,  1977,  or approved...
          prior  to June 30, 1974...effluent limitations  based upon
          secondary treatment as defined by the Administrator pursuant
          to section 304(d)(l)  of this Act."   (Act, Section 301(b)(l)(B)).
          "The Administrator...shall publish...information, in terms of
          amounts of constituents and chemical, physical,  and biological
          characteristics of pollutants, on the degree of  effluent
          reduction attainable  through the application of  secondary
          treatment."   (Act, Section 304(d)(l)).

-------
State water quality standards - The term "State Water Quality Standards"
          means those State adopted and Federally approved uses  and  criter-
          ia that are legally applicable to the interstate and intrastate
          waters.  The water quality standards  are incorporated  by  refer-
          ence in Part 120 of Title 40 of Code  of Federal  Regulations.

Storm sewer - "A sewer intended to carry only storm waters, surface
          run-off, street wash waters, and drainage."  (40 CFR 35.905-22).

Upstream pollutant source - Source of pollutant discharged into  the
          receiving waters which is located upstream from  the area  of
          consideration.

Haste load allocation - A waste load allocation for a segment is the
          assignment of target loads to point,  and to nonpoint sources
          to achieve water quality standards in the most effective manner.

Waste treatment facilities - "Any devices and systems used in the storage,
          treatment, recycling and reclamation  of municipal sewage or
          industrial wastes of a liquid nature...in addition...any other
          method or system for preventing, abating, reducing, storing,
          treating, separating, or disposing of municipal  waste, including
          waste in combined storm water and sanitary sewer systems."  (Act,
          Section 212(2)).  Also termed treatment works.

Water quality limited segments - "Any segment where it is  known  that water
          quality does not meet applicable water quality standards,  and/or
          is not expected to meet applicable water quality standards even
          after the application of the effluent limitations required by
          sections 301(b)(l)(B) and 301(b)(2)(A)  of the Act."  (40 CFR

-------
         ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR STATE WATER QUALITY
                    MANAGEMENT PLANNING
     This bibliography has been prepared to assist those engaged
in State WQM Planning.  The references have been arranged to
correspond to the planning process elements and outputs.  Refer-
ences cited have been selected for their applicability to State
WQM Planning and for their availability.

     Each reference is followed by a short abstract and, whenever
possible, by detailed price and ordering information.  Instructions
for using the Government Printing Office and the National Technical
Information Service are also included on the last page.

-------
                              - 2 -
PLANNING PROCESS ELEMENTS

PROCESS DEVELOPMENT AND WORKPLAN CONTROL

Workplan Handbook for Section 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management
Planning^U.S. EPA.Wash. D.C.  '75.Available upon  request
from EPA Regional Offices.

      Provides details on the preparation of areawide  planning
      workplans.  The handbook provides examples of workplan
      elements to assist locally designated planning agencies
      in preparing 208 workplans.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM/INTERAGENCY COORDINATION

A Citizen's Guide to Clean Water.  U.S. EPA.  Wash. D.C. June  '73.
Available upon request from U.S. EPA Office of Public  Affairs  (A-107)
Wash, D.C. 20460.

      95 page booklet provides the layman with a good  introduction
      to the problem of water pollution and what can be done to  solve
      it including citizen action.  Explains major EPA water pollution
      abatement programs and emphasizes role of the citizen.

A Ladder of Public Participation, "Journal of the American Institute of
Planners", Vol. 35,no.4.Sherry R. Arnstein.  Wash.  D.C. July,  '69.
Reprints of journals are available from Kraus Thomson  Organization  Ltd.,
Route 100, Millwood, N.Y. 10546, $3.75 per copy, State month and  year  of
journal desired.

      A typology of citizen participation is offered using examples
      from three federal social programs: urban renewal, anti-poverty,
      and Model Cities.  The typology, which is designed to be provoca-
      tive, is arranged in a ladder pattern with each  rung corresponding
      to the extent of citizens's power in determining the plan  and/or
      program.

Agreement for Implementation of Section 3Q4(j) of the  Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972~Federal Register Vol.38
No. 225, Nov 25, '73.

      Agreement between EPA and Departments of Interior,
      Agriculture and Army on setting up 208 advisory
      committees with representation of signatory agencies.

Analysis of New Techniques for Public Involvement in Water Planning.
Water Resources Bulletin Vol. 11, No. 2 page 329.April  '75.BacF
issues available at $4.00 per copy from Dana Rhoads, American Water
Resources Association, St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Lab, Mississippi
River at 3rd Ave. S.E., Minneapolis, Minnesota  55414.

-------
                             -  3 -

      Several techniques that have potential for overcoming  some  of
      the limitations of standard public involvement  technioues have
      recently been developed.  This paper describes  several of
      these new techniques and  analyzes each of them  in  terms of
      their potential utility in water resources planning.

Areawide Waste Treatment Management Planning.  U.S. EPA.  Wash. DC.
Nov '74.GPO (stock no. 625-620) or single copies available from
U.S. EPA Office of Public Affairs (A-107) Wash. D.C.  20460.

      A 13 page booklet explaining the EPA's areawide waste  treatment
      management planning program under Section 208 of the Act.   Explains
      to layman what areawide planning is, what it can do, and how it
      relates to other EPA programs.  Explains roles  of  Federal,  State,
      and local agencies in the planning process.  Suitable  for public
      information.

Citizen Participation Strategies, "Journal of the American Institute of
Planners". Edmund M. Burke.  Wash. D.C. Sept  '68. Reprints of journals
are available from Kraus Thomson Organization Ltd., Route 100, Millwood,
N.Y. 10546, $3.75 per copy.  State month and year of  journal desired.

      Suggests that many of the problems planners and others have
      had in involving the public in decision making  can be  resolved
      by recognizing and adopting a strategy of participation specifi-
      cally designed to fit the role and resources of a  particular
      organization. Five types  of strategies are identified: Education-
      therapy, behavioral change, staff supplement, cooptation, and
      community power.

First Things First; A Strategy  Against Water Pollution.  U.S. EPA.
Wash. D.C. Sept "74.GPO (stock no. 551-507) or single  copies available
from U.S. EPA Office of Public  Affairs (A-107) Wash.  D.C. 20460.

      A 16 page booklet explaining the major elements of the strategy
      used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the States
      in their attack on water  pollution, the problems faced and  what
      is being done about them.  Suitable for public  information.

Joint Agreement for Interagency Coordination of Areawide Waste Treatment
Management Planning Assistance  to State and Local Governments between
EPA and the Department of the Army7Federal Reaister Vol. 40 No. 11,
Jan 16,  ^5.

      Agreement between EPA and Deparbnent of the Army which
      established coordination  between the Corps of Engineers
      Urban Studies Program and the 208 Program.

Public Participation in Water Resources Planning. University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor.  r7T.  NTIS PB 204-245.

-------
                               - 4 -


      Reviews public participation activities and procedures  which  have
      been utilized in connection with governmental planning  studies,
      especially water resources planning studies.  Discusses identi-
      fication of public; functions and objectives; mechanisms for
      securing involvement; and timing.  Also presents  a model for  a
      participatory planning process.

Selected Techniques for Soliciting Community Participation  in
Transportation Planning.Julie Hetrick Schermer.New  York,  NY,  '74.
Copies of this paper available upon request from Mr. William  Reed,
Director of Publications, Parson, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas,  Inc.
1 Penn Plaza, 250 W. 34th St., New York, NY 10001.

      Five techniques for greater community participation recently
      employed in major transportation planning projects are  reviewed
      and assessed in this paper.  They are equally applicable to waste
      treatment management planning and include "citizen committees",
      "randomly selected participation groups", "open door  policy",
      "direct funding to community groups", and "planning balance sheet".

The Role of Citizen Advisory Groups in Water Resources  Planning,
Publication No. 43.Madge Ertel, Water Resources Research  Center,
University of Massachusetts at Amherst, July, '74.  Available At  $3.00
per copy from Water Resources Research Center, University of  Mass.,
A211 Graduate Research Center, Amherst, Mass.  01002.

      Report is the result of case study observation of the citizen
      advisory groups operating in conjunction with three planning
      studies.  Describes the ways in which these groups have dealt
      with problems and to generalize from their experience for the
      benefit of other citizen advisory groups and planning agencies.
      Concludes with a set of practical "guidelines" derived  from this
      research, for the use of planning agencies seeking to maximize
      the effectiveness of citizen advisory groups.

Water Resources Decision Making on the Basis of the Public  Interest.               »
Report No. IWR Contract Report 75-1.U.S. Army Engineer Institute
for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Va, Feb  '75.  NTIS,  AD/A 010 402
$4.25.

      The concept of water resources decison making in  the  public
      interest is both fundamental and elusive.  This report  discusses
      alternative perspectives that have been suggested for defining
      the public interest and provides an overview of the decision
      making in involved in a typical water resources planning study.
      It then examines various approaches to determining the  pjblic
      interest in preauthorization planning and decision making.                  ^

-------
                               -  5 -

ESTABLISHMENT OF PLAN OBJECTIVES

Guidelines for Areawide Waste Treatment Management.   U.S.  EPA.
Wash. D.C. Aug '75.  Available upon request from TiPA  Reaional
Offices.

      Intended to assist 208 planning agencies  in  carrying
      out their areawide waste treatment planning  responsibilities
      within designated area.  It applies also  to  other  agencies—
      local, State and Federal—that may be involved  in  the Planning
      process for those areas or  in plan review procedures.

Policies and Procedures for State Continuing Planning Process.  (4G cFR
Part 130).  Federal Register, Vol. 40 No. 137 July 16,~T7S7""

     These regulations describe the necessary elements of  =? otcte's
     continuing planning process, and therefore provide  policies  and
     procedures for review, revision and approval  of  a State's
     continuing planning process.  Also provided is a mechanism for
     satisfaction of the Statewide responsibilities of other sections
     of the Act.  They apply to phase I plans (those  submitted
     before July 1, '76.)"

Preparation of State Water Quality Management Plans (Proposed Rules).
(40 CFR Part 131).Federal Register, Vol. 40,  No. 137,  July 16,  '75.

     These amended regulations describe the requirements for
     preparation of water quality management plans and the
     procedures governing plan adoption, submission,  revision,
     and EPA approval.  These regulations apply to phase II plans
     (those submitted after July  1, '76).

Preparation of Water Quality Management Plans.  (40CFR Part 131)
Federal Register, Vol. 39, No. 107, June 3, '74. (under  revision)

     These regulations describe requirements for preparation of basin
     plans and the procedures governing basin plan adoption, submission,
     revision, and EPA approval.  They apply to phase I  plans (those
     submitted before July 1, '76).

DATA COLLECTION (economic, demographic, land use, environmental
impact, waste loads, monitoring program, water  quality data)


PROJECTIONS OF WASTE LOADS (projection of economic, demographic,
land use factors to develop waste load projections, interim outputs,
related to facilities planning.)

-------
                               - 6 -

Design of Cost-Effective Water Quality Surveillance Systems,  Report
No. EPA 600/5-74-0047"' U.S. EPA.  Wash. D.C. Jan.  '74.   GPO,  $4.05.

     Presents the development and successful demonstration  of
     quantitative methods for the design of river  basin  water
     quality surveillance systems for pollution abatement.  The
     methods provide a systematic approach to  the  consideration of
     expected stream conditions, system characteristics,  equipment
     performance, and cost in the selection of a preferred  system
     design from amo'iq a number of candidates.  Methods  are compu-
     terized and PLoqcams are detailed in the  report.

Design with Natur e.  Ian McHarg. Garden City:  Natural History Press,
19()9.  Published for the American Museum of Natural History.  Ihe
Natural History Press, Garden City, NY, 501 Franklin Ave.,  Garden
City, NY 11530.

     Demonstrates by using concrete examples how man's new  knowledge
     of ecology can be' applied to actual environments, both natural
     ones such as seashores, lakes, rivers, and swamps and  those that
     man has created such as large cities.  Emphasis is  placed on the
     concept of design with nature and showing how man can  impose
     design but "use ho the fullest, the potentialities  and with them,
     necessarily, the restrictive conditions - that nature  offers."

Guidelines for Preparation of Water Quality Management Plans.  U.S. EPA.
Wash. D.C.r7TT~ Available upon request from EPA Regional Offices.

     Describe the preparation of basin plans pursuant to the
     State continuing planning process (Section 303(e) of the
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
     and 40 CFR Part 130-131).  They are intended  for use as
     the basin planning methodology by State and local personnel
     in preparing water quality management plans.

1972 OBERS Projections; Economic Activity in the U.S.; Based  on
Series E Population, Vol. I-VII.   (U.S. Water  Resources  Council)".
Wash. D.C. 'TT.  GFO, stock no.: Vol. I, 5245-0013, $3.05;                        *
Vol. II, 5245-00014, $2.50; Vol. Ill, 5245-00015,  $3.10; Vol. IV,
5245-00016, $1.90; Vol. V, 5245-00017, $2.75;  Vol. VI, 5245-00018,
$2.50; Vol. VII, 5245-00019, $2.75.

     The projections in this report incorporate the Census
     Bureau's 1972 "Series E" national population  projection.
     Vol. I: Concepts,, Methodology and summary data. Vol. II:
     BEA Economic Areas, Vol.Ill: Water Resources  Regions and
     Subareas, Vol. TV: States, Vol. V: Standard Metropolitan
     Statistical Areas, Vol. VI: Non-SMSA Portions of BEA Economic
     Areas, Vol. VII: Non-SMSA Portions of Water Resources  Subareas.             M

-------
                               -  7  -

Program Guidance Memorandum AM-2.   U.S.  EPA, Water  Planning  Division.
Wash. D.C., March  '75. Available  upon  request  from  EPA Regional  Offices.

     Sets forth policy and procedures  concerning  the  use  of  interim
     outputs to guide facilities  planning  after award of  a 208
     grant.

Program Guidance Memorandum AM-8.   U.S.  EPA, Water  Planning  Division
Wash. D.C. May '75.Available upon request  from  EPA  Regional  Office.

     Transmits policy and decision  rules to  allow Regional Offices
     to evaluate designated agency  grant applications for acceptable
     water quality analysis and modeling,  waste load  estimation, and
     data collection efforts  in proposed workplans  for designated
     208 areas.

Promoting Environmental Quality Through  Urban  Planning and Controls.
Report No. 600/5-73-015.U.S. EPA. Socioeconomic Environmental  Studies
Series, Feb '74.  NTIS PB-227-090/8.   $11.50.

     Focuses on the changing  awareness and current  practices in
     promoting environmental  Quality through urban  planning  and
     controls in local and metropolitan  planning  agencies.   Includes
     a review of planning practices in the 1960's related to environ-
     mental quality; and a detailed examination of  numerous  planning
     approaches and controls  considered  to be  promising for  future
     environmental quality enhancement.

Stream Quality Preservation Through Planned  Urban Development. U.S.  EPA.
Report No. EPA R5-73-019.Socioeconomic Environmental Studies Series,
Wash. D.C. May '73. GPO, $2.60.   NTIS  PB 222-177.

     The effects of a land use plan to restrict urban development
     in areas critical to the water resouce  system  are identified
     through empirical studies for  example:  relationships are
     established between amount,  density,  type and  location  of urban
     development, on the one  hand,  and stream  water quality  and  stream
     channel enlargement on the other.

The Quiet Revolution in Land  Use  Control.  U.S. Council on Environmental
Quality.Fred Bosselman and  David  Callies.  Wash. D.C.  GPO, stock  no.
4111-0006, $2.75

     A report on the innovative land use laws  of  several  States. The
     report examines in detail several different  Statewide regulatory
     systems, several systems where "critical  areas"  only are  regulated
     and several systems focusing on key types of land development.  The
     examinations are based primarily  on a review of  the  key statutes
     regulations and decisions and  on  interviews with administering
     officials and other groups.  Key  issues that run through  all systems
     are synthesized.

-------
                              - 8 -

Urban Land Use Planning.  F. Stuart Chapin, Jr. Urbana,  Illinois:
University of Illinois Press, '65.

     Focuses primarily on theory and methods with  special  attention
     given to the techniques required  in making analysis of  land
     use, in measuring trends, and in  estimating present and
     future requirements for the uses  of land.  Aspects  concerned
     with the legal basis of planning,  its legislative controls                »
     and its administrative organization are specifically  excluded
     from detailed treatment.

WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS (Model selection, calibration, verification,
prediction of water quality impact of  waste loads, waste load                 *
allocations—including interim outputs related to  facilities
planning)

Guidelines for Preparation of Water Quality Management Plans. U.S. EPA.
Wash. D.C. '74.Available upon request from EPA Regional  Offices.

     Abstract:  See previous reference

Program Guidance Memorandum AM-2.  U.S. EPA, Water Planning  Division
Wash. D.C.March '75.Available upon request from  EPA  Regional Offices.

     Abstract: See previous reference                                          ™

Simplified Mathematical Modeling of Water Quality,  (with addendum).
U.S. EPA.Wash. D.C. March "71.Available from:  Planning Assistance
and Policy Branch, (WH-554) U.S. EPA,  Wash. D.C. 20460.

     A general simplified methodology  for the application  of
     mathematical models to the analysis of water  quality.   The
     parameters modeled include certain dissolved  oxygen in  streams
     and estuaries.  The modeling efforts have been  incorporated into
     various tables, nomographs and figures, and along with  some
     technical data, may be used to estimate treatment levels to
     meet specific water quality standards.                                      ,

Information regarding the applicability and availability of  other
specific water quality models is available from: Mr. William Somers,
Technical Assistance Section, Planning Assistance  Branch (WH-554)
U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. 20460.

The following 208 planning process elements are the  basis  for developing
the 208 outputs which follow on the next pages.  References  on these
elements are broken down according to  the 208 outputs which  follow

-------
                              -  9 -

DEVELOPMENT OF ABATEMENT ALTERNATIVES

DEVELOPMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION ALTERNATIVES
(legal, financial, institutional analysis, proposed management
agency(s) and institutional arrangement  to carry  out  abatement
programs, including needed regulatory programs)

IMPACT EVALUATION AND PLAN SELECTION
(environmental assessment, plan  evaluation, plan  selection
through public involvement)

PLAN REVIEW/APPROVAL
(local review and recommendation, State  review/approval,
EPA review/approval)

208 OUTPUTS

Municipal and Industrial Treatment Works Program  (first six)

INTERIM OUTPUTS FOR FACILITY PLANNING

Interim Output Evaluation Handbook for Section  208 Areawide Waste
Treatment Management Planning.U.S. EPA. Wash. D.C.  '75. Available
upon request from EPA Regional Offices.

     Deals with interim outputs  expected within the first 9 months
     of the two-year 208 areawide waste  treatment management  planning
     program namely: service area delineation,  population and land use
     projections, flow and waste load projections, and waste  load
     allocation revisions.

Program Guidance Memorandum AM-2.  U.S.  EPA, Water Planning Division.
Wash. D.C.March '75.Available upon request  from U.S. EPA  Regional
Offices.

     Abstract:  See previous reference.

FURTHER FACILITY PLANNING

Guidance for Facilities Planning. U.S. EPA.  Wash. D.C.  May,  '75.
Available upon request from EPA  Regional Offices.

     Suggests procedures for engineers,  planners, municipalities
     and local, State and Federal agencies to follow  in seeking
     grants for the construction of publicly owned treatment  works.
     The procedures are intended to assure that treatment works to
     be constructed will be cost-effective, environmentally sound
     and publicly accepted.

-------
                              - 10 -

Program Guidance Memorandum AM-1.  U.S. EPA, Water Planning Division.
Wash. D.C.March  '75.Available upon request  from EPA  Regional
Offices.

     Transmits policy statement issued March 11,  1975 by the
     Assistant for Water and Hazardous Materials  on the  subject
     of the relationship between 201 facilities planning and
     208 areawide planning,  (attached)

SEWER AND HOOK-UP ORDINANCE

Problems and Approaches to Areawide Water Quality Management.   Vol.  I-IV.
U.S. EPA. School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana;  University,
Wash. D.C. '73.  NTIS PB-239-808.  $25.00

     This report deals with the issues of the adequate authority  of
     designated waste treatment management agencies to perform as
     required by Section 208(c)(2) and related  sections  of the Act.
     "Adequate authority" includes both the legal authority and the
     management capability of the agencies.  The  report  is based  on
     a legal analysis of the laws of the fifty  states and of federal
     legislation, and on a survey of existing waste treatment  manage-
     ment agencies.  The study consists of a main report, an executive
     summary, and two separately bound appendices: Appendix A- Suggested
     Representative or Model legislation, Appendix B - States  Reports.

WPCF Manual of Practice No. 3  Regulation of Sewer Use.   Water Pollution
Control Federation.Wash. D.C.  '68.Available  from Water  Pollution
Control Federation, 3900 Wisconsin Avenue, Wash. D.C.  20016,  price $2.00

     The manual presents the case for legally constituted guidelines
     to regulate the use of public sewer systems.   It  does  so through
     presentation of a model sewer use ordinance and a detailed  discussion
     of its component parts.

PRETREATMENT ORDINANCES

Federal Guidelines, Pretreatment of Pollutants Introduced into Publicly
Owned Treatment Works.U.S. EPA.Wash. D.C. Oct  '73.Available upon
request from EPA Regional Offices.

     Guidelines established to assist municipalities,  States, and
     Federal agencies in developing requirements for the pretreatment
     of wastewaters which are discharged to publicly owned  treatment
     works.  Also explain relationship between pretreatment and  effluent
     limitations for a publicly owned treatment  works.

Improved Procedures for Municipal Regulation of  Industrial  Discharges
to Public Sewers (forth coming).No report no.  assigned.Draft avail-
able from U.S. EPA, Water Planning Division (WH-554),  Wash.  D.C. 20460.

-------
                            - 11 -

     Reviews the current status of  local government  control  of
     industrial wastes discharged into oublicly  owned  t-teatment
     works and finds them  ineffective as a means of  controlling
     large scale industrial activities.  The  report  ^uqqests an
     effective and economical regulatory scheme  for.  complying with
     the federal pretreatment and effluent standards and  the require-
     ments imposed on federally-financed treatment works.  The
     approach involves a contractual agreement between an industry
     and a public entity for treatment of the industry'*;  wastewater.

Problems and Approaches to Areawide Water Quality Management, Vol. I-IV.
School of Public and Environmental  Affairs, Indiana~Un1veTsTty, Wash.  D.C.,
'73.  NTIS PB-239-808.  $25.00

     Abstract: See previous abstract

DEFINITION OF INDUSTRIAL TREATMENT  LEVELS AND TIB INTO
MUNICIPAL SYSTEMS

Design Criteria for Mechanical, Electric, Fluid  Systems and  Component
Reliability!  U.S. EPA. Wash. D.C.  NTIS PB-227-355/T*"'~~	

     Amplifies and supplements the  Federal Guidelines  for Design,
     Operation, and Maintenance of  Wastewater Treatment Facilities
     with regard to establishing minimum standards ol  reliability
     for mechanical, electric and fluid systems  and  components.
     Stresses component backup to attain system  relinbjlity,

Effluent Guidelines and Development Documents.   U.S, F;T"\.  Wash. D.C.

     The Effluent Guidelines Division of the  Office  of Water and
     Hazardous Materials,  EPA, has  published  effluent  limitation
     guidelines for existing industrial sources  and  standards of
     performance and pretreatment standards for  new  industrial
     sources.  Effluent limitation  guidelines and standards  have
     been published for each of a number of different  industrial
     categories.  In addition, for  each industrial category,
     development documents have been published which contain
     supportive data and rationales for the development of the
     applicable effluent limitation guideline and performance
     standard.  While all of the effluent limitations  guidelines
     and development documents are  too numerous  to be  referenced
     here, information pertaining to specific industrial  categories
     can be obtained from, Ms. Frances Desselle,  Affluent Guidelines
     Division (WH-552) U.S. EPA, Washington,  D.C. 2046Q,

Federal Guidelines, Operation and Maintenance of Wastewater  Treatment
Facilities^U.S. EPA.  Wash. D.C.  Aug  "74.   AvaiTaFl"" upon  request
from EPA Regional Offices.

-------
                               12 -

     These guidelines are intended to assist in assuring that all
     aspects related to wastewater treatment plant Operation and
     maintenance are appropriately considered by those responsible
     for complying with grant requirements, specific effluent permit
     criteria, and related water quality standards.  They provide
     information on the key elements that should be included in any
     plan of operation for a wastewater treatment facility.  Source
     documents offering more detailed information are referenced
     throughout.

FederalGuidelines, Pretreatment of Pollutants Introduced Into Publicly
Owned Treatment Works.  U.S. EPA. Wash. D.C. Oct '73.  Available upon
rGquest~from EPA Regional Offices.

     Abstract: See previous reference.

Guidance^for Sewer System Evaluation.  U.S. EPA. Wash. D.C.  '74.
AvaTTaFle upon reauest from EPA Regional Offices. -

     Intended to provide engineers, municipalities, regulatory
     agencies with guidance on sewer system evaluation to determine
     presence of excessive infiltration/inflow.  Includes discussion
     of physical surveys rainfall simulation preparatory cleaning
     internal inspection and survey reports.

Waste Load Allocations in River Basin Plans.

     River basin plans required under Section 303 of the Act                     V
     contain waste load allocations for segments of streams
     designated water quality limited.  These allocations
     would, of course, be useful in defining industrial treatment
     levels.

ORDINANCES ON LOCATION OF PRIVATE AND INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES

Problems and Approaches to Areawide Water Quality Management, Vol.  I-IV.
U.S. EPATSchool of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indianai University,
Wash. D.C.  '73.  NTIS PB-239-808.  $25.00

     Abstract:  See previous reference
                                                                                   *
RESIDUAL WASTE MANAGEMENT

Development of Residuals Management Strategies  (forthcoming).  U.S. EPA.
Report No. not assigned.Wash. D.C.Draft copy available from U.S. EPA
Water Planning Division (WH-554), Wash. D.C. 20460.                                «

     Study of the development of strategies for managing residuals.
     Contains step by step guidelines for identifying alternate
     residuals management strategies and then evaluating and selecting
     a strategy.  Presents a residuals generation and discharge model

-------
                               - 13  -

     which identifies different methods  for  complying with  recent
     federal legislation that requires a specified  level  of environ-
     mental quality and identifies many  points  in the residuals
     generation and discharge process at which  physical methods can
     be introduced or changes made,  to reduce or alleviate  the  effect
     of discharging residuals into the environment.

Evaluation of Land Application Systems,  Technical Bulletin, EPA Report
No. EPA 520/9-75-001.  U.S. EPA.  WasR".  D.C., March '75.  GPO, NTIS
(awaiting number assignment).

     Procedures are set forth to assist  EPA  personnel in  evaluating
     treatment systems that employ land  application of municipal
     wastewater.  In addition information is provided which may be of
     value to State, local and other Federal agencies.  Consists of an
     Evaluation Checklist, parallel  background  information  and  is
     divided into three major parts  dealing  with:  (1) facilities plans,
     (2) design plans and specifications,  and  (3) operation and
     maintenance manuals.

Information Package on Residual Waste Management.   U.S. EPA.  Wash. D.C.
Oct '75.Available upon request from U.S. EPA, Planning  Assistance and
Policy Branch (WH-554) Wash. D.C. 20460.

     Contains a bibliography of helpful  publications.  Provides
     description and status of ongoing research and/or demonstration
     projects dealing with residual  waste management.

Land Application of Sewage Effluents and Sludges; Selected  Abstracts,
Report No. EPA 660/2-74-042.U.S. EPA.National Environmental Research
Center, Corvallis, Oregon. 1974. GPO, $2.80, NTIS PB 235-386 $8.50

     Combines selected abstracts from previous  publications and
     updates the sources abstracted  into the year 1973.   The 568
     abstracts selected for inclusion are arranged  in chronological
     groupings and are identified as to  emphasis on effluent or sludge.

Municipal Sewage Treatment; A Comparison of  Alternatives.   Council on
Environmental Quality and U.S. EPA.Wash. D.C., Feb ' 74.   GPO.

     Provides a single document which can be utilized on  a  comparative
     basis, to develop preliminary selections of appropriate wastewater
     treatment schemes for a municipality.   The format of the text
     allows the reader to compare various treatment strategies  on an
     energy, environmental or economic basis and to develop cost figures
     which may better reflect a particular local situation.

-------
                               - 14 -

Process Design Manual for Sludge Treatment and Disposal/  Report No.
EPA 625/41-74-006.U.S. EPA.Wash. D.C., Oct'74.Available  upon
request from U.S. EPA Office of Technology Transfer, CM#2 Rm 1014,
RD 677. Wash. D.C. 20460.

     Presents a contemporary review of  sludge processing  technology
     and the specific procedures to be  considered, modified, and applied
     to meet unique conditions.  Emphasizes operational considerations
     and interrrelationships of the various sludge treatment processes
     to be considered before selecting  the optimum design.   Also
     presents case histories of existing wastewater treatment  plants
     to illustrate the varous unit processes and  results.

Wastewater Treatment and Reuse By Land  Applicability, Vol.  I,  Report No.
EPA 660/2-73-006a.Vol. II 660/2-73-006b.U.S.  EPA. Wash.  D.C. Aug '73
GPO Vol. 1 - $1.10, Vol. II - $2.40

     Report of a nationwide study of current knowledge and techniques
     of land application of municipal treatment plant effluents and
     industrial wastewaters.  Information and data were gathered on
     the many factors involved in system design and operation  for the
     three major land application approaches: irrigation, overland flow,
     and infiltration-percolation.  In  addition,  evaluations were made
     of environmental effects, public health considerations, aind costs—
     areas in which limited data are available.

URBAN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Comparative Analysis of Urban Stormwater Models.  U.S. EPA.  Nov '74.
Available upon request from U.S. EPA, Planning Assistance and  Policy
Branch (WH-554), Wash. D.C. 20460.

     Eighteen mathematical models for the nonsteady simulation of
     runoff in urban storm and combined sewerage  systems  were
     reviewed in a study sponsored by EPA.  Most  of the models
     evaluated include the nonsteady simulation of the rainfall-
     runoff process and flow routing in sewers.   A few also include
     the simulation of wastewater quality, options for dimensioning
     sewerage system components, and features for realtime control
     of overflows during rainstorms.

Contributors of Urban Roadway Usage to  Water Pollution, Report No.
EPA 600/2-75-004.U.S. EPA.Wash. D.C. March  '75.NTIS no.  not
assigned yet.

     Study of contributions of motor vehicle usage to urban roadway
     loading factors.  Specific roadway study sites within the non-
     industrial Washington, D.C. area were selected so as to provide
     minimal interference from non-traffic-related land use activities
     and thus isolate, as much as possible, the traffic-related
     depositions.

-------
                            - 15  -

Practice in Detention of Stormwater Runoff. Herbert G.  Poertner,
American Public Works Association,  '74.NTIS  PB-234-554.

     On-site detention of runoff  was  investigated  as  an alternative
     to other methods of urban stormwater  runoff management.   It  was
     found that this method, which  involves collecting  excess  runoff
     before it enters the main drainage  system, can often  be applied
     an an effective and economical means  of reducing peak runoff slow
     rates to lessen or eliminate problems of  flooding, pollution, soil
     erosion, and siltation.

Urban Stormwater Management Research  and Planning  Projects for FY 1975

and FY 1976, Information Package.   U.S.  EPA.   Wash. D.C. March '75.
Available upon request from U.S.  EPA,  Planning Assistance  Branch  (WH-554),
Wash. D.C. 20460.

     Information contained in this  report  is concerned  with urban
     stormwater management.  Well over one hundred projects were
     reviewed and those selected  to be included within  this report
     were chosen because of their contribution to  the planning process
     for urban stormwater management.  Five areas  within the planning
     process are identified and projects are categorized aopropriately.
     Also includes a list of bibliographies where  information  on  projects
     done prior to FY 75 is available.

Urban Stormwater Management and Technology: An Assessment, Report No.
EPA 670/2-74-040.U.S. EPA.National Environmental  Research  Center,
Cincinnati, '74.  GPO, NTIS, PB 240-687/AS $11.50.

     The results of a comprehensive investigation  and assessment  of
     promising, completed, and ongoing urban stormwater projects,
     representatives of the state-of-the-art in abatement  theory  and
     technology.  Presented in a  textbook  format,  provides a compendium
     of project information on management  and  technology alternatives
     within a project framework of  problem identification, evaluation
     procedures and program assessment and selection.

Water Quality Management Planning for Urban Runoff. Report No.
EPA-440/9-75-004. U.S. EPA.Wash. D.C.  Dec '74.NTIS  PB  241-689/AS
$7.50

     Provides technical assistance  to state and local water quality
     management planners to enable  them  to quantify within reasonable
     limits the urban non-point water pollution problem in a local
     planning area without extensive data  generation, and  to make a
     preliminary evalution of cost-effective abatement  and control
     practices.  Prescribes procedures for several levels  of input,
     each requiring more self-generated  data,  with increasingly
     sophisticated results.

-------
                              - 16 -

Water Resources Protection Measures in Land Development; A Handbook
U.S. Dept. of Interior, Office of Water Resources.Wash. D.C.^4.
NTIS PB 236-049.

     Description of measures that can become an integrated part  of
     urban development to lessen problems that would otherwise adversely
     affect water resources.  Measures are presented in groups and
     related directly to the problems of runoff, erosion, sedimentation,
     flooding, runoff pollution and increased sewage effluent discharge.
     Each group is preceded by a flow chart that relates individual
     measures to each other and can aid in the selection of alternative
     techniques that follow a logical seouence.

NONPOINT SOURCES MANAGEMENT GENERAL

Methods for Identifying and Evaluating the Nature and Extent of
Nonpoint Sources of Pollutants, Report No. EPA 430/9-73-014."U.S. EPA
Wash. D.C. '73.  GPO, $2.45

     This report issued under Section 304(e) provides general
     information on the identification and assessment of nonpoint
     sources.  Particular attention is paid to agriculture, silvi-
     culture, mining, and construction.

Report on State Sediment Control Institutes Program, Report No.
EPA 440/9-75-001.U.S. EPA.Wash. D.C. April T75.  GPO Stock No.
582-421/246.

     This report resumes the results of 40 State sediment control
     institutes sponsored by EPA, through a grant to the National
     Association of Conservation Districts.  The status of laws
     in the states is covered and a model State law for sediment
     control is included.

AGRICULTURAL SOURCE MANAGEMENT

Evaluation of Salinity Created by Irrigation Return Flows, Report No.
EPA-430/9-74-006.U.S. EPA.Wash. D.C. '74.GPO, $1.65.

     Report provides general descriptions of the problems,
     major problem areas, and remedial and control measures.

Methods and Practices for Controlling Water Pollution from Agricultural
Nonpoint Sources, Report No. EPA 430/9-73-015.U.S. EPA.Wash. D.C.
T7TGPO, $1.10.

     Issued under Section 304(e), report provides general descrip-
     tions of various measures that may be used to control agricultural
     runoff.  It is strongly directed to erosion and sediment control,
     but nutrients, pesticides, and animal wastes are covered.

-------
                                -  17  -

Research Status on Effects of Land Application of Animal Wastes ,
Report No. EPA-660/2-75-010.  U.S. EPA.   Wash. D.C.  NTIS awaiting
number assignment.

     Report primarily  resumes research  results.  However, in one
     chapter, it outlines a procedure for estimation of the effects
     of animal wastes  on crop utilization nutrients.

Study of Current and Proposed Practices  in Animal Waste Management,
Report No. EPA 430/9-74-003.  U.S. EPA.   Wash. D.C.   Jan. '74.
GPO, $4.70.

     Report briefly discusses various methods  of disposal and/or
     utilization of animal wastes.   The  report contains 362 pages
     of annotated bibliography.

Numerous Soil Conservation Service,  Agricultural Research Service,
and other EPA ORD Reports.
SILVICULTURAL SOURCE MANAGEMENT

                                Water Quality, Report No.
                                                           NTIS
Logging Roads and Protection of Water  Quality,  Report No.  EPA
910/9-75-007.  U.S. EPA.  Seattle,  Washington,  March '75.   NTI
no. not assigned yet.
     Report provides discussions  and  data  for  design,  construction,
     use and maintenance of  logging roads  to prevent pollution.
     An overview of logging  roads problems is  provided.

Processes, Procedures and Methods to  Control Pollution from
Silvicultural Activities.  Report No.  EPA  430/9-73-010.   U7s.  EPA.
Wash. D.C. '73.  GPO, $1.25.

     This report issued under Section 304 (e),  provides general
     information on the nature of silviculture pollution  control
     problems and on control methods.  General predictive techniques
     and criteria for management  programs  are  included.

MINING SOURCE MANAGEMENT

Processes, Procedures and Methods to  Control Pollution from
Mining Activities, Report No. EPA 430/9-73-011.   U.S.  EPA.
Wash. D.C. '73.  GPO, $3.40.

     Report provides general information on controls for  surface
     and underground mines, and treatment  methods.   Some  cost
     information is included.

Various publications of EPA  (ORD), Bureau  of Mines,  SCS,  Appalachian
Regional Commission, and others.

-------
                               - 18 -

CONSTRUCTION SOURCE MANAGEMENT

Comparative Costs of Erosion and Sediment Control, Construction
Activities, Report No. EPA 430/973-016.U.S. EPA. Wash. D.C.  '73.
GPO $2.20

     Cost  information on erosion and sediment control measures
     has been assembled in this report, evaluated, and documented
     for more then 25 methods in current and widespread use  in the
     United States.

Control of Erosion and Sediment Deposition from Construction of
Highways and Land Development.U.S. EPA. Wash. D.C. Sept  '71.
GPO, $.60

     Discusses the causes and effects of excess sediment runoff,
     measures for control, costs, and administration.

Methods of Quickly Vegetating Soils of Low Productivity, Construction
Activities, Report No. EPA 440/9-75-008.U.S. EPA.Wash. D.C., July '75.
GPO Stock No. 210-810/11 1-3.

     Document prepared for use by planners, engineers, and resource
     managers who need to provide for the rapid establishment of a
     protective vegetative cover on bare soils on construction sites.

Processes, Procedures, and Methods to Control Pollution Result!ng from
All Construction Activity, Report No. EPA 430/9-73-007.U.S. EPA.
Wash. D.C. '73. GPO,  $2.30.

     Issued according to requirements of Section 304(e) of P.L.
     92-500.  Report provides information of a general nature
     regarding measures for controlling or preventing erosion cind
     sediment runoff, stormwater, and pollutants other than  sediments.

HYDROGRAPHIC MODIFICATION MANAGEMENT

The Control of Pollution from Hydrographic Modifications, Report No.
EPA 430/9-73-017.U.S. EPA.Wash. D.C. '73. GPO, $1.95.

     This  report issued under Section 304(e) provides information
     and guidance for use in identification and evaluation of non-
     point sources of pollutants, and processes, procedures  and
     control methods when pollution results from changes in  the
     movement flow or circulation of any navigable waters or ground
     waters.

-------
                             - 19 -

GROUNDWATER POLLUTION MANAGEMENT

Ground Water Pollution from Subsurface Excavations, Report No. EPA
430/9-73-012.U.S. EPA.Wash. D.C.  '73. GPO, $2.25.

     Report issued under Section 304(e), provides  information on
     identification and evaluation, and on control methods.  Injection
     wells, lagoons, septic systems,  land fills, pipe  leakage, etc.
     are generally covered.  Administrators Decisions  Statement No.  5
     is included.

Identification and Control of Pollution from Salt Water  Intrusion.
U.S. EPA.Wash. D.C. '73.NTIS PB 227-229/2.

     Report issued under Section 304(e), provides general information
     on identification and assessment; and on control  methods.  Coastal
     and inland waters are covered.

Subsurface Pollution Problems in the  United States, Report No. T3-00-72-02.
U.S. EPA.Wash. D.C. May  '72. GPO Stock No. 514-148/60.

     Report provides very general information on types of
     subsurface problems experienced  in the United States.

Subsurface Water Pollution, A Selected Annotated Bibliography. Part  I -
"Subsurface Waste Injection"; Part II - "Saline Water  Intrusion";
Part III - "Percolation from Subsurface Sources".U.S.  EPA.Wash.  D.C.
March '72. NTIS, Part I: PB-211-340;  Part II: PB-211-341; Part III:
PB-211-342.

     A selective bibliography produced from the computerized data
     base of the OWRR Water Resources Scientific Information Center.
     Represents published research in water resources  as abstracted
     and indexed in the semi-monthly  journal, Selected Water Resource
     Abstracts.  Represents a search  of a 33,980 - item  data base,
     covering SWRA from October 1968  through December  1971.

MANAGEMENT FISCAL AND REGULATORY
1971.Suggested State Legislation  (1971); 1972 Suggested State Legislation
(1972); 1973 Suggested State Legislation (1973); 1974 Suggested State
Legislation (1974); 1975 Suggested State Legislation (1975).Council  of
State Governments.  Available from Council of State Governments,  1150
17th Street, N.W. Wash. D.C. 20036. $5.00 for each volume  covering  one
year.

     Includes suggested legislation that would be relevant
     for implementing 208 plans.

-------
4
                               - 20 -

Institional Design for Water Quality Management; A Case Study  of  the
Wisconsin River Basin, Vol. 1-IX. Irving K. Fox.Resources Center,
University of Wisconsin, Madison Wisconsin, 1971.  NTIS PB-199-268.

     A case study of the institutional arrangements  for
     implementing areawide water quality management  plans.

Problems and Approaches to Areawide Water Quality Management,  Vol.                *
I-IV.U.S. EPA.School of Public and Environmental Affairs,  Indiana
University, Wash. D.C., '73. NTIS PB-239-808.  $25.00

     Abstract:  See previous reference

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

A Procedure for Evaluating Environmental Impact, Circular No.  645.
Luna B. Leopold, et. al.U.S. Geological Survey.Wash. D.C.r7T.
Available upon request from U.S. Geological Survey,  National Center,
Reston, Virginia 22092.

     Suggests an approach to evaluate the probable impact of a
     proposed action on the environment by providing a system
     for the analysis and numerical weighting of probable impacts.               ^
     System uses the "generalized matrix" approach.                              fl

A Review of Environmental Impact Assessment Methodologies, Report No.
EPA 600/5-74-002.U.S. EPA.  Wash. D.C. April  '74.  GPO $.70,
NTIS PB-236-609/AS.

     Seventeen  methodologies applicable to preparation of
     environmental impact statements are reviewed to identify
     their strengths, weaknesses, and potential range of use.
     Specific criteria are suggested for evaluating  the adequacy
     of an impact assessment methodology.

An Approach to Evaluated Environmental Social and Economic Factors
in Water Resources Planning.  Water Resources Bulletin Vol. 8  No. 4                -,
page 724.Aug. '72.Back issues available at $4.00 per copy  from
Dana Rhoads, American Water Resources Association, St. Anthony Falls,
Hydraulic Lab, Mississippi River at 3rd Ave. S.E., Minneapolis, Minn.
55414.
                                                                                   •
     Briefly discusses present methods of project evaluation and
     then describes an approach adapted from highway planning
     literature for evaluating both monetary and non monetary
     variables and presenting them to decision makers at all levels.
     Social and environmental consequences are analyzed using  a
     graphical description method.  Includes a case  example.

-------
                               - 21 -

Bibliography for Environmental Assessment and Impact Evaluation
of Areawide Water Quality Management.U.S. EPA.Wash. D.C. Nov  '75.
Available upon request from U.S. EPA, Planning Assistance  and  Policy
Branch (WH-554), Wash. D.C. 20460.

     A bibliography of references dealing with environmental
     assessment and impact evaluation.  Emphasis  is placed on
     those relating to environmental assessment and impact
     evaluation of areawide water quality management.

Manual for Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements  for  Wastewater
Treatment Works, Facilities Plans, and 208 Areawide Waste  Treatment~
Management Plans"U.S. EPA.Wash. D.C.  '74. Available upon request
from U.S. EPA, Office of Federal Activities (A-104), Wash. D.C. 20460.

     Provides the framework for preparing environmental impact
     statements (EIS's) when required on wastewater treatment
     works, facilities plans, or 208 areawide waste management
     plans.  Provides certain minimum standards of completeness
     and consistency in those EIS's prepared by EPA in the above
     categor ies.

Performance Controls for Sensitive Lands; A Practical Guide for
Local Administrators, Report No. EPA-600/5-75-005.U.S. EPA.
Wash. D.C.March '75.  NTIS, awaiting number assignment.

     Intended as handbook for use by local planning officials
     in planning for and regulating use of streams and creeks,
     wetlands, woodlands, hillsides, and groundwater and aquifer
     recharge areas.  Discusses ecology and value of sensitive
     areas, and recommends regulatory programs.   Includes  appendices
     on obtaining technical assistance.

The Impact Assessment Scenario.  A Planning Tool  for Meeting the
Nation's Energy Needs.Report No. M-72-56.Martin V. Jones.
The Mitre Corporation, McLean Virginia. April '72. NTIS PB-211-471.

     Seeks to illustrate how the scenario technique, developed by
     systems analysts in sixties, can be adapted  to help accomplish
     comprehensive, systematic planning in the energy field.   Concepts
     developed apply, however, to water quality management.

Secondary Impacts of Transporation and Wastewater Investments;
Review and Bibliography. Report No. EPA 600/5-75-002.U.S. EPA.
Wash. D.C. Jan '75.OTIS awaiting no. assignment.

     A review of over 50 major studies and 300 relevant reports
     related to secondary environmental impacts on various forms
     of public investments, e.g. land based transportation and
     wastewater collection systems.

-------
                               - 22 -

Secondary Impacts of Transportation and Wastewater  Investments;
Research Results, Report No. EPA 600/5-75-013.U.S.  EPA. Wash.  D.C.
July '75.NTIS, awaiting number assignment.

     The second report of a 2 part research study.  This  report
     presents the results of original research on the extent  to
     which secondary develooment can be attributed  to highways
     and wastewater treatment and collection, and what  conditions
     under which causal relations appear to exist.

-------
                               -  23  -

             INSTRUCTIONS FOR  ORDERING PUBLICATIONS

National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, Virginia 22161

     The National Technical  Information Service has available for sale,
both paper and microfiche copies of many EPA technical reports.   Some
reports are, however, available  only in microfiche.  Information on
availability and prices  is given only by mail  and can be obtained by
writing to the NTIS and  giving them the following information:

     1.  Title of the report
     2.  NTIS accession  number (usually in the form:  PB-000-000).
     3.  EPA Report No.  (If  known,  usually in  the form:  EPA 000/0-00-000).
     4.  Number of copies required.
     5.  Paper copies or microfiche.

     NTIS will respond by mail with a price quote and availability
statement.  Publications can then be ordered by mail  with payment
enclosed.

U.S. Government Printing Office  (GPO)

Superintendent of Documents
U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402

     The Government Printing Office has available for sale, paper
copies of many EPA and other agency publications.  Information  on the
availability and price of publications can be  obtained by calling the
Publications Information/Order Desk at GPO in  Washington, D.C.   The
desk can be reached at area  code 202, 783-3238.  The  following  infor-
mation will be needed.

     1.  Title of the report.
     2.  EPA Report No.  (usually in the form:  EPA OOO/o-OO-OOO).
     3.  GPO Stock No. (if known).

     The Information/Order Desk  can then check the availability and
quote the price.  If the publication is available a check for the
amount, payable to the Superintendent of Documents, can be mailed
with the order to GPO.   Publications will be mailed upon receipt of
the payment.  If ordering in the Washington, D.C. area publications
can be picked up in person at  GPO.   When calling for  information and
price ask the clerk to assign  a  pick-up number.  The  publications can
then be picked up in person at GPO.

-------
    GUIDELINES FOR STATE AND AREAWIDE WATER QUALITY
             MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
                       SUPPLEMENT NO. 1
                BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
1.1    Introduction

       This Supplement No. 1 to the Guidelines for State and Areawide
Water Quality Management Program Development provides additional
guidance to that already contained in regulations and guidelines.  Policies
and Procedures for the State  Continuing Planning Process\(40 CFR 130)
and Preparation of Water Quality Management Basin Plans (40 CFR 131)
delineate requirements for the utilization of Best Management Practices
(BMP) in water quality management programs.  Procedures for implementing
the BMP concept are detailed in  the Guidelines  for State and Areawide
Water Quality Management Program Development. These regulations
and guidelines  call for States to select BMP applicable to  the pollution
problems and particular conditions in each State. Where designated 208
areas or agencies exist within a  State, the  State and the 208 agencies
must work together in establishing appropriate  BMP for the designated
area.  The purpose of this Supplement No.  1 is  to illustrate for various
nonpoint sources alternative management practices that States might
consider in choosing the BMP.

1. 2    Definition of Best Management Practices  (BMP)

       The term Best Management  Practices  (BMP) means a practice, or
combination of practices, that is determined by a State (or designated
areawide planning agency) after problem assessment, examination of alternative
practices,  and appropriate public participation to be the most effective,
practicable (including technological,  economic, and institutional  considerations)
means of preventing or reducing the  amount of pollution generated by
nonpoint sources to a level compatible with water quality goals.

1. 3    Concept of BMP

       The control of pollutants in the runoff, seepage and percolation
from nonpoint sources can be accomplished through management of the
sources.  BMP is intended to be an acceptable basis for State management
of nonpoint sources and to be of assistance for pollution abatement under
NPDES.  BMP are  the management techniques necessary  to protect water
quality.  The management techniques (BMP) are to be determined by
State and local government.

       Point sources are defined in P. L. 92-500.  Nonpoint sources are
not defined.  By inference, nonpoint  sources are those sources that
result in diffuse runoff (seepage, infiltration and percolation) of pollutants
to the nation's waters.

-------
                               -2-


       Point sources will be managed under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES).  Permit issuance is based on Best Practical
Technology (BPT) and/or Best Available Technology (BAT). Permit
issuance and regulatory followup will be carried out by the States or
by EPA where authority for NPDES has not been delegated to the States.

       Nonpoint sources will be managed under the authorities of Section 208.
This Section of the FWPCA specifies that the States have the primary
responsibility for managing and controlling nonpoint sources of pollution
under Federal overview and with Federal assistance and cooperation.   The
mandatory State control program required by the Act may be based upon
utilization of BMP provided that the State Water Quality Management program
contains adequate measures for the identification of nonpoint source problems,
selection of such practices to correct existing and prevent future nonpoint
source problems, and assure implementation of approved, planned, or
proposed practices; including required regulatory and enforcement systems.

       This guidance is primarily intended to apply to the  BMP' as they
may be used in the control of nonpoint sources.  However, the BMP
may be equally as valuable in reducing the pollutants in point discharge
sources.  In essence,  the BMP should be considered as a useful tool
for reducing pollutants regardless  of whether the source is classified
as a point or nonpoint  source for planning, management, and
regulatory purposes.

       Because of the variability in sources, topography,  climate, soils,
etc., no one BMP will be applicable to all activities or situations.
The BMP must be tailored to the needs of the particular source  and
to the physical conditions that will  govern its application.  It is expected
that State and local expertise,  fully familiar with both the sources
and the physical conditions, will be utilized in the final selection of BMP.

1. 4    General Criteria for Choosing BMP for Nonpoint Sources

       The definition of BMP states several criteria or tests which
should be applied by the State in choosing Best Management Practices             *
(BMP):

           - a BMP should manage "pollution generated by
             nonpoint sources"

           - a BMP should achieve water quality "compatible
             with water quality goals"

           - a BMP should be "most effective in preventing
             or  reducing the amount of pollution generated"

           - a BMP should be "practicable"                                    m

-------
                                  -3 -


       A.  A BMP should manage "pollution generated by nonpoint sources''

       Water pollution sources can be functionally categorized in accordance
with man's activities.  This type of categorization has been used in
Section 208  and 304(e), P. L. 92-500 in connection with nonpoint sources.
It is considered to be applicable to the selection of BMP to prevent or
reduce pollution from these sources.  As a minimum, the State should
consider the following activity categories in its establishment of BMP
for nonpoint sources:

                  1.  Agricultural Activities
                  2.  Silvicultural Activities
                  3.  Mining Activities
                  4.  Construction Activities
                  5.  Urban Runoff
                  6.  Hydrologic Modifications
                  7.  Sources Affecting Ground Water
                  8.  Residual Wastes  Disposal

       The use of this classification  of sources should not be  interpreted
as placing sources into nonpoint or point categories. As emphasized
earlier, BMP will be useful in preventing or reducing pollutants in both
nonpoint and point sources  of water pollution.

       The interrelation of  the activities outlined above should be considered
in the selection of BMP.  It may be advantageous to further categorize
the nonpoint sources based on similar  control aspects.   Utilization of
sub-categorization could reduce the  amount of  duplication in the selection
of management practices.  Examples of such sub-categorizations are:
(1) by similar physical conditions, e.g., soils, slope, precipitation patterns;
(2) by similar activities, e.g.,  soil  disturbance --construction, strip mining,
land development; (3) by site-specific characteristics,  e.g.,  all activities
in a single area of like conditions; and (4) by pollutant to be controlled,
e.g., sediments, acidity/alkalinity,  oxygen demanding materials.

       B.  A BMP should achieve water quality "compatible with water
          quality goals"

       Through analysis of  existing water quality data and of newly acquired
data where necessary, target levels  of  abatement should be chosen for each
planning area in the State.   The BMP should be selected in terms of
meeting these targets.   The pollutants that must be  controlled should be
determined.  While  BMP will normally prevent or reduce several
pollutants, the final selection of BMP should be related to those pollutants
that must  be controlled to achieve water quality goals.

-------
                                  -4-


       C.  A BMP should be "most effective in preventing or reducing
           the amount of pollution generated"

       The State should select criteria against which the effectiveness
of the BMP can be related.  These criteria (Ibs/tons  per day/week/
month/year, Ibs/tons per acre/square mile/basin, etc. ) should be
related to the reduction  of pollutants and achievement of water quality
goals.   The effectiveness of the BMP in reducing pollutants should be
fully evaluated in terms of the  selected criteria.

       The reduction or  elimination of pollutants in the  runoff, seepage,
and percolation from nonpoint sources can materially contribute
to the protection of the quality  of the Nation's waters.  In general,
there are two options for accomplishing the needed reductions and/or
eliminations, namely; (1) Collection and treatment of  the pollutants
and, (2) reduction and/or prevention of the formation, runoff,  seepage,
and percolation of the pollutants.

       Collection and treatment of the runoff, seepage and percolation
of pollutants from nonpoint sources may be necessary in some cases.
However, the collection and treatment of pollutants from nonpoint
sources is generally complex and expensive.   Because  of this,
collection and treatment is considered to be a final measure to be
utilized where other preventive measures will not reach the necessary
water quality protection goals.

       The BMP must be technically capable of preventing or  reducing
the  runoff, seepage,  or  percolation of pollutants.  First consideration
should be given to those preventive techniques that have been  shown
to be effective during their past use.  New and innovative techniques
should be fully analyzed as to their technical capability of preventing
or reducing pollutants prior to their consideration for incorporation
into the BMP.

       While one practice  (measure) may be adequate in some  cases,
BMP will generally consist of a combination of practices.  The various
alternatives  should be fully evaluated. In choosing among the  alternatives,
the  BMP that most effectively achieves the desired level of water pollution
control should be chosen.   If more than one alternative will achieve
the  level of effectiveness necessary to reach water quality goals,  the
least costly alternative should  be chosen.

       D.  A BMP should be "practicable"

       Implementation of the BMP should be feasible from not only the
technical standpoint but  also the economic, legal,  and institutional
standpoints.  The practicality of securing early implementation should
be evaluated in the selection of the BMP.                                       A

-------
                                  -5-
      The primary goal of BMP is the protection of water quality.
However, expensive preventive techniques that will result in little
water quality benefits should be avoided.  The BMP must be capable
of being implemented within the financial capability of the area, and
of the owners  or operators of the various sources.   Side benefits as
well as the installation and operational costs should be included in
the evaluation.  The final selection of the BMP should take into
consideration both the costs of the preventive techniques and the
economic benefits (water quality or otherwise) to society that will
result from their use.

      A number of the preventive techniques that may be incorporated
in the BMP are already in widespread use within various source
categories. These techniques should receive first  consideration in the
selection of the BMP. Techniques that will require material operational
changes in the source management should be avoided unless they are
necessary for water quality protection.  Insofar as  is possible, the
initial implementation of the BMP should be accomplished with the
existing legal and institutional framework of the State.  However, if
additional legal authority is needed,  steps should be taken at an
early date to secure the  needed authority.

      Full consideration should be given to the total effect on the
environment in the  selection of the BMP for water pollution control.
BMP applied to prevent or reduce water pollution could result  in
adverse effects on the other portions of the environment such as the
creation of air pollution  or solid waste disposal problems.  Adverse
effects on other portions of the environment are not only undesirable
but also will delay the implementation of BMP to control water pollution.

1. 5   Sources of Information on Techniques

      In general,  a great body of knowledge concerning the management
techniques already  exists in the manual and other publications  of various
Federal,  State and  local agencies currently operating programs related
to the nonpoint source field (e.g., the U.S.  Soil Conservation  Service
and various Soil Conservation Districts manuals and publications; the
manuals and other publications of the U.S. Forest Service).  EPA
encourages the use of such techniques once they have been reviewed and
evaluated, and found to have a significant favorable impact on the ecological
quality of the  waters of the Nation.

      Such information will be supplemented, by EPA and other Federal
agencies, as additional knowledge becomes available.

      In those areas where organized bodies of information do not exist
(e.g., urban drainage),  EPA is to provide potential users with as much
information as is possible regarding state-of-the-art techniques for control,

-------
                               -6-
1. 6   Source Category BMP

      Information on BMP as applied to a source category is contained in the
BMP papers that follow.
                                                                              I

-------
                                                    DRAFT
                                                     12FEB 1976
                     BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
              URBAN RUNOFF SOURCES OF WATER POLLUTION
    Urban runoff pollution  is the result of precipitation washing  the
surface of a city—the  pollution associated with this runoff being
inevitably a consequence  of human activity.  Urban runoff contributes
significant amounts of  pollution to receiving water.  These sources
may be either point or  nonpoint, or combinations of the two.  In
meeting this problem, this  guidance is intended to provide information
regarding the management  of pollution from urban runoff and to supplement
information regarding control of urban runoff under NPDES requirements.

Introduction

     Pollution from urban runoff occurs when precipitation flushes the
urban environment and carries pollutants to receiving waters.  As surfaces
are flushed, the polluted water flows overland toward the collection
systems.  The initial collection systems are the land surface, roof tops,
parking lots, and the like, which slope toward secondary collection
systems (roadways,  streets, gutters, and drains).   It is there that
surface water concentrates  as it flows into the sewerage.  .These
systems are of two  general  types:  seperate or combined.  Separate
storm sewers carry, in  addition, untreated municipal and industrial
wastewater.  On the other hand, separate storm sewers discharge directly
other hand, usually have  flow-splitting devices which, during  high flows,
bypass a high percentage of untreated combined sewage directly to  the
receiving waters.   The  remaining smaller fraction  receives some treat-
ment before being discharged.
     Polluted runoff contains substantial amounts  of organic material,
inorganic solids,  and coliform bacteria.  Other pollutants include
nutrients, pesticides,  and  heavy metals.  Clearly, these pollutants
degrade the receiving water quality.  This degradation often results in
decreased dissolved oxygen  levels and high turbidities.  Coliform  bacteria,
indicate the presence of pathogenic bacteria which are pollutants.
Moreover, nutrients, in the form of nitrogen and phosphorus, contribute
to increased eutrophication rates.  Although runoff contains pesticides
and heavy metals,  their impact on the aquatic environment is as yet
largely unknown, though recent evidence suggests that the presence of
heavy metals decreases  the  diversity of aquatic biota.

-------
                               -2-
     Problems related to water quality degradation  resulting  from
unregulated, or poorly regulated  runoff are  accelerated  erosion  of
land area and stream banks, sediment deposition  in  channels,  increased
flooding, increasing potential for public  health problems  and deter-
ioration of aesthetic quality.  Indeed, the  total pollutant loads of
stormwater, during storm runoff periods, can exceed by many times
that of municipal  treatment plants.   This  condition could  very well
preclude meeting water'quality standards—regardless of  the degree
of treatment afforded dry weather wastewater flows.

Nature of the Problem

     If one word can describe the nature of  the  urban runoff  problem,
that word would be variability.  For example, the quantity and
quality of storm overflows can vary with respect to storm  character-
istics, antecedent conditions, time, location/ degree of urbanization
or even other factors.

     While stormwater runoff problems may  be characterized by their
variable nature, the ultimate cause of this  pollution may  be  traced
to the activities of man.  Four examples are:

     1.  Fallout from the Air- Fallout or  washout from the air contri-
butes substantial  amounts of particulate matter.  Winds  carry dust and
dirt into and out of an area, but leave large amounts trapped within
the area.

     2.  Residue from Transportation- Automobiles,  trucks, and buses
remain a major source of suspended solids, chemical oxygen demanding
material, and heavy metals, especially lead.

     3.  Debris from Man's Carelessness- Street  litter--an accumulation
of trash—is a major source of organic material.

     4.  Washoff from Construction- Runoff from  urban construction sites,
whether it is from new developments, or redevelopment, contributes sig-
nificant amounts of sediment.

     Sediment remains the most common pollutant  which results from these
activities.  It exists ubiquitously in an  urban  area. Recent evidence
indicates that heavy metals, nutrients, and  some pesticides may  adsorb
or cling to sediments.

-------
                                -3-
Concept

     The object of nonpoint source controls is to protect the beneficial
uses intended for receiving waters.  While treatment appears an availa-
ble means to achieve this end, its cost remains prohibitive.  A less
costly alternative is, then, to address the sources and causes of
pollution.  Best Management Practices achieve this goal through the
reduction and prevention of pollution.  Such is the principal focus of
the BMP concept.

     Management practices may be divided into two groups: those most
useful for existing or developed areas and those more applicable to
new or developing areas.  Problems of developed areas occur where
structures and pavements are in place and where drainage is accomplished
primarily through sewering.  In the densely populated commercial, and
industrial subareas, management techniques such as improved sanitation
practices and improved maintenance practices are most effective.  Such
techniques reduce the amount of pollutants, that can enter the drainage
system.
     The "preventive" concept best applies to developing urban areas,
for these are areas where man's encroachment is minimal and drainage is
essentially natural.  These areas offer the greatest flexibility of
approach in preventing pollution.  What is required, therefore, is to
manage the development in order to maintain a runoff regime as close to
natural as possible.  It is in these new areas where proper management
practices can prevent long term problems.

     The philosophy of flow attenuation underlies the preventive objective
of the BMP concept.  Flow attenuation, as an approach to controlling the
rate of urban runoff, is well documented.  It is concerned directly with
runoff as it moves over the surface of the urban area to the initial
collection system.  Flow attenuation, in an hydrologic sense, means to
increase the time of concentration and decrease the magnitude of the peak
runoff. Less erosion results because reduced runoff velocity reduces the
erosion force.  Furthermore, with this technique large volumes of water
are not allowed to rapidly accumulate at constructions, but flow at
reduced rates over a longer period of time, thus diminishing the possi-
bility of localized flooding.  Management practices focus on the sources
of pollutants and their means of conveyance.  The improvement to water
quality is a result of reduced loadings to the receiving water.
ment to water quality is a result of reduced loadings to the receiving
water.

-------
                                -4-
Management Options

     Best management practices,  within the urban  area,  are  an  integrated
approach using source and collection system management.   Source  manage-
ment is defined here as those measures for reducing or  preventing  pollution
through good "housekeeping" methods.  Examples of "housekeeping" techniques
are:

     1)  Street cleaning,
     2)  Sewer flushing,
     3)  Catch basin cleaning,
     4)  Improved waste collection,
     5)  Stock pile covering.

Source management addresses the  pollutants where  they accumulate,  before
they are washed into the receiving water.

     Collection system management, as  used here,  includes all  alternatives
pertaining to collection systems which begin from the ground  surface and
end with the sewer outfall.  Examples  include devices such  as:

     1)  Detention basins,
     2)  Recreation lakes,
     3)  Debris dams,
     4)  Playground or parking lot temporary storage,
     5)  Roof tops, and
     6)  Use of flow separating  devices such as the swirl concentrator,
     7)  In-systems devices such as
         a.  Use of existing sewers  for storage
         b.  In-line tunnels
         c.  Addition of polymers
         d.  Inflow/infiltration reduction, etc.
     8)  Groundwater Recharge

Collection system management is  concerned  with reducing the amount and
rate of runoff and in addition,  the  number of overflows in  combined sewers.

     Reuse of stormwater should  be considered as  a management  option in
those areas of the country that  are  water  deficient. Runoff,  from sur-
face storage, can be used for such nonpotable uses as fire  fighting or
lawn irrigation.  Groundwater recharge should be  considered where  it is
practicable, and the quality of  the  recharging water would  not pollute
the receiving aquifer.

-------
                                -5-
     An integrated approach would include source management to reduce
pollutant loads and collection system management to reduce infiltration,
overflows, and rate of runoff.  BMP's should thus stress both source and
collection system management.  The management goal  is to reduce or prevent
pollution in order to meet water quality objectives at a minimum cost.

     Developed areas are subject primarily to housekeeping type techniques
--reduction of loadings being accomplished by actual  sweeping after the
fact.  Preventive approaches such as increasing percolation into the soil,
and attenuating runoff through surface storage, are possible and should
be considered when redevelopment occurs.  The highest degree of flexibility
of approach and probability of sucess is in the developing areas as control
can be built into the project.  The opportunity to contain the urban runoff
problem and avoid long term problems,is such that high priority should  be
given to planning and implementation of management programs in all  areas.

Information Sources

     Information on load estimating, management techniques, and tech-
nology assessment for the reduction and prevention of pollution from
urban runoff can be found in the following publications:

     1.  "Interim Report on Loading Functions for Assessment of Water
     Pollution from Nonpoint Sources", EPA-Project #68-01-2293, U.S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 20460, November 1975.

     2.  "Water Quality Management Planning for Urban Runoff", EPA-440/9-75-004,
     U.S., Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460
     December 1974.

     3.  "Practices in Detention of Urban Stormwater Runoff", Herbert
     Poertner, Office of Water Resources Research and Technology, U.S.
     Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.,  June 1974, NTIS order
     number:  PB 234554.

     4.  "Water Resources Protection Measures in Land Development - A
     Handbook", Office of Water Resources Research and Technology,  U.S.
     Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.,  April 1974, NTIS order
     number:  PB 236049.

     5.  "Urban Stormwater Management and Technology - An Assessment",
     EPA-670/2-74-040, U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency, Washington,
     D.C., 20460, December 1974.

-------
                                                             DRAFT
                      BEST MANAGEMENT  PRACTICES              w* vr»" '37$
                    TO MINIMIZE WATER  POLLUTION DUE
                          TO RESIDUAL  WASTES
     The other nonpoint source categories of agriculture, silviculture,
mining, construction,  urban  runoff,  and  hydrologic modification often
produce residual  wastes through their  activities.  These discarded
materials must be properly handled  to  provide  for our health and
environmental protection.   Our choices in problem solution are
limited.  Wastes  may be disposed of, recovered for some use, or
reduced at the source of generation.

     Millions of  tons  of residual wastes are disposed annually,
generally by burying or burning and  burying; this results in various
degrees of environmental  harm to air,  land and water.  Surface and
ground water damage result when the  pollutants from these residual
wastes are conveyed to waters by run-off and infiltration.  Using
the residual waste generated by wastewater treatment plants as a base
factor of one, residential  and commercial sources generate about 17
times as much waste as generated by wastewater treatment plants, and
industry produces about 35 times the base amount.  Agriculture pro-
duces 2 1/2 times the  waste  produced by  industry, and mining produces
7 times that amount.

     The following guidance  is intended  to provide information regarding
the control of pollution  from nonpoint sources of residual wastes and
to supplement information  regarding control of residual waste pollution
associated with discharges  regulated under the requirements of NPDES.

                         Introduction

     Residual wastes are  defined as those solid, liquid, or sludge
substances frcm man's  activities in the  urban, agricultural, industrial,
and mining environment not discharged  to water after collection and
necessary treatment.  Residual  wastes  include, but are not limited to:

     .  Sludges resulting  from water and domestic wastewater treatment,
        industrial  processes,  utility  plant processes and mining
        processes;

     .  Solids resulting  from industrial and agricultural processes
        and from  nonprocess  industrial and commercial activities
        (demolition wastes,  mine tailings, incinerator residues,
        dredge spoil,  crop residues, feedlot wastes, and pesticide
        containers);

        Liquids resulting  from industrial side streams and from agricul-
        tural product  processing.

-------
                                -2-
     Residual wastes must be considered as largely untapped resources
with unrealized potentials for beneficial uses.   The minimal  use of
residual wastes has primarily resulted from the  traditional considera-
tion of such wastes as a problem rather than  as  potential  assets.   The  ocean
and land have been the final resting places for  societies' residues/
because they have been the most economical. This attitude has resulted
in dumps with few siting considerations, a lack  of site maintenance
and no emphasis for resource recovery.

     As treatment requirements become more stringent with further
implementation of the Federal Water Pollution Control and Clean Air
Acts, residual wastes will greatly increase and  will contain  a wider
range and greater concentration of pollutants.

     Management programs for handling vast quantities of residuals
often fall short of providing adequate protection of water quSlity.
Frequently, procedures intended to abate air and water pollution problems
worsen residual waste problems.  Since residual  wastes are the end-
product discards of all  processes, the management of residual wastes
clearly cannot continue to be considered separately from the  overall
management  processes and systems that produce  the wastes.  Just as
the environment -- air,  water and land -- must  be considered  a
continuous whole, and be treated as such, residual waste problems
cannot be successfully segregated into individual components  for
separate particularized handling.  All considerations must be inte-
grated into a problem-solving approach that will achieve total waste
management, on an areawide basis, with emphasis  upon (1)  recovering
the resource values contained in any such wastes, and (2) the satis-
factory, sanitary disposal of any element or portion of the residual
wastes not amenable to resources recovery processing  or without
economic value for such processing.

                  Identification of Pollutants

     The types of wastes and their composition  have changed greatly
over the past three decades, due largely, to changes in lifestyle
and to the great diversity of new products on the market.  The wastes
society  generates are conveniently classified  into hazardous and
nonhazardous.  The biological, chemical, and physical actions of
the environment, can, with unacceptable control  measures, act on these
residuals to release their hazardous and undesirable constituents to
the environment.

-------
                                -3-

     Water quality problems which can result from the released waste
constituents exceeding the assimilative capacity of the receiving
water include:  aesthetic deterioration, dissolved oxygen depletion,
bacteria/virus contamination, suspended solids, dissolved solids,
nutrients, and metals/pesticides/persistent organic toxic compounds.
All of the above problems are directly or indirectly associated with
precipitation, which provides mobility to the waste constituents.

     For the most part, nonhazardous residual wastes are a local or
regional problem.  The Federal role has been to identify and test
possible solutions, with State and local governments responsible for
implementation.  Hazardous residual wastes are a problem of national
scope, with Federal laws controlling the storage and disposal  of
waste pesticides and containers, and radioactive wastes.  This limited
Federal authority leaves many gaps in the disposal of hazardous wastes.

              Concept of Best Management Practices

     While the residual waste situation is technologically, economically,
governmentally and socially complex, it can be made to succumb to a
sound, results-oriented program of conceptualization, investigation,
analysis and evaluation, planning and programming and (most importantly)
the exercise of capable leadership and strong resolve to implement
areawide programs and systems.

     This approach infers  that residual waste problems can best be
corrected by the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP)
which can be expected to result systematically in flow attenuation
of waters, waste stabilization, waste reduction, and resource  recovery
and recycling.  BMP approaches cannot be established and utilized
individually, but must be integrated into an overall system for the
effective management of residual wastes.  Everything works interdepend-
ently.  Flow attenuation, while reducing entrained run-off pollutants,
can actually increase infiltration and increase the requirement for
waste stablization.  Reducing wastes at the source by preventing the
production of wastes, and, at the disposal end, through the resource
conservation can either eliminate the residues from many manufacturing
processes, before they appear as wastes, or prevent the residuals from
coming into extensive, dis-beneficial contact with the environment.

                      Management Techniques

     Many techniques can be applied to the management of residual wastes,
and the alternatives can be divided into two general categories:

     (1)  Innovation.  This would include, particularly, the development
of source reduction techniques (basically administrative) and systems for
the recovery or recycling of residual wastes (basically technological
and institutional).  Reference must be continually made to the total waste
management system, including in-process  treatment, or containment pro-
cedures.

-------
                              -4-

     (2)  Application of existing techniques.   This would involve the
utilization of demonstrated state-of-the-art techniques to remedy
problems; basically, this would be an extension of the present process.

     A BMP might be included in either of the above categories.
However, EPA encourages the first:  innovation.  Over the long term,
the innovative approach will result in accomplishing the greatest
source reduction and the greatest recovery of resources, as well  as
the abatement of pollution.  Actually, pollution abatement is achieved
almost as a by-product of the innovative process.

     However, both approaches are equally amenable to standard admin-
istrative and regulatory practices.  The end goal  of the approach
should be to provide sufficient reduction in pollutants to enable
the meeting of designated water quality objectives at minimum cost.

     Any BMP should consider that*cost considerations are vital and
that treatment alternatives will be used  only when lower cost
alternatives fail to provide the required reduction in pollutants.
The greatest degree of freedom in alternative selection will be under
new source conditions where existing decisions and capital investments
will not be overriding factors.  These new source condition controls
will permit the greatest short-term accomplishment.  The implementation
of BMP's under existing source conditions cannot be accomplished
overnight.  The key to successful existing condition control is orderly
transition.  It is necessary that any action be phased in over time
in such a way that adverse consequences are minimized or eliminated.
The BMP concept must recognize that capital investments and individual's
jobs must be counted and no change, should be implemented until all
the benefits and costs have been weighed.  These criteria must'be
weighed against the urgency of water quality requirements and objectives,
which are insistent that certain ameliorating actions be taken.

     Solutions, under a BMP, should be directed toward meeting the
following key needs:

     .   the need to design a workable, flexible system;

     .   the need to use, establish, or modify appropriate institutional
        arrangements (laws, organizations, processes);

     .   the need to reduce uncertainties, promote actions to implement;

     .   the need to establish a sense of urgency,  improve schedule;

        the need to establish a process of continuous improvement
        through research and development in the local area;

-------
                              -5-

     .  the need to help people get started on a coordinated basis --
        incentivization;

     .  the need to give adequate attention to all public information
        and education programs.

     Any BMP must meet certain general and specific criteria.  General
criteria are provided in the States Water Quality Management Guidelines.
The specific criteria for  a residual  waste  BMP  follow:

Geographic Situation

     The geology of our country can vary widely over short distances,
resulting in numerous soil types and hydrologic profiles.  Residual
waste disposal and use alternatives must consider these variables
as they determine the mobility of waste components in this under-
ground portion of the environment.  Topography of the sites (terrain
slope, type of surface covering and distance between surface hydro-
logical features) affects waste component mobility.  The BMP must
examine these variables to prevent waste from being transferred between
environmental structures, ultimately impacting water quality objectives.

Meteorological Conditions

     The frequency, intensity, and duration of precipitation within and
outside of the site will affect the surface water infiltration and
material deposition and movement.  Precipitation can be in a number of
forms, but rain and snowmelt account for the major volumes.  The ambient
temperature can determine the rate of snowmelt and the biological
activity of a site.  The absolute humidity as it affects biological
activity and physio-chemical alterations of nonconservative waste
components can make new products that are more or less environmentally
toxic and mobile than the parent material.  As meteorological activity
can directly affect water component mobility, the BMP must be compatible
with these environmental influences.

Demographic Conditions

     The practicability of certain BMP's can depend upon high densities
of population or industry(ies) being present or absent in a given area.
Frequently, there are critical limits at which resource recovery and
waste reduction become feasible alternatives.  Also, as mentioned
earlier, capital investment and individuals' jobs must be weighed when
considering implementation of a given BMP,

Socio-Political Infrastructure

     The BMP must address more than the residual wastes, their composition
and their movement^and the     technical or technological problems of
their management.  Any waste management system that is handling a problem
as pervasive as the management of residual wastes must be inlaid into a
socio-economic and socio-politicel "envelope" that has its own problems

-------
                               -6-

in dealing with the type of management system that will  ultimately
emerge for the management of residual  wastes.   These problems will
include the development of areawide (regional)  resolve to implement/
and a structure and process through which management may be exercised.
Developing these programmatic elements in the face of interlocal/inter-
governmental political and economic rivalries,and the social  differences
that may occur within a given region calls for the development of new
patterns for working together, new programs for promoting public under-
standing and reducing public apathy^and the devising of such  instruments
of public policy as strong local  and State legislation to establish
viable structure and process and reduce marketing uncertainties.

     The following specific examples of Alternative  strategies  are
provided for planning purposes only.  They are not recommendations.
Use of any one or more of these specific examples should be based upon
a comprehensive, areawide, interdisciplinary investigation and the
development of specific recommendations from the data.

Source Reduction

     The source reduction strategy involves techniques which  are
basically legislative and administrative in nature.   Examples include:

     ,  Design and use of products that live longer.

     .  Design and use of products which have less material weight.

     .  Monetary incentives (beverage container deposits).

Resource Conservation

     Source Separation and Centralized Processing.  The source separation
strategy involves a system of low technology techniques.  Examples include:

     .  Separation of waste materials  in the home.

     .  Separation of waste materials  at commercial  establishments.

     .  Separation of waste materials  at industrial  establishments.

     The centralized processing strategy involves high technology,
capital-intensive systems.  Examples include:

     .  Fuel (solid, gas, liquid) and material  (ferrous and nonferrous
        metals, glass) recovery plants.

        Energy conversion facilities (retrofits, new boilers).

     .  Material conversion facilities (de-tinning plants, rninimills,
        glass products plants, smelters).

     •  Transportation systems.

-------
                            -7-
Disposal

     The disposal strategy generally involves low-technology systems.
Examples include:

     .  Construction and demolition waste;

     .  Lined lagoon and landfill

     .  Waste stabilization;

     .  Landfill stockpiling for potential future recovery.
                          Information Sources
     EPA has published numerous reports describing methods for
management practices and preventive techniques for the control of
residual wastes resulting from man's activities.   Many of the
practices described above are discussed in some detail in the
following publications.  This listing is by no means exhaustive
and the user is encouraged to look further.

     .   Residual Waste Management Research and Planning Projects,
        EPA-WPD 09-75-01, September 1975.

        Sludge Processing, Transportation and Disposal/Resource
        Recovery:  A Planning Perspective; EPA-WPD 1^-75-01,
        December 1975.

        Interim Report on Loading Functions for Assessment of
        Water Pollution From Nonpoint Sources, EPA Project
        No.  68-01-2293, November 1975.

        Development of Residual Management Strategies EPA 600/1-76-01,
        January 1976.

        Residual Waste-Best Management Practices  Handbook,
        EPA-WPD 02-76-01, February 1976.

     Additional information regarding institutional structures and
methods of implementation will be provided in later publications.

-------
                  BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
              TO MINIMIZE WATER POLLUTION DUE
                 TO HYDROLOGIC MODIFICATIONS
Introduction

    Many development activities within planning areas necessitate
hydrologic modifications as an essential feature.   These include
(1) channel modifications; (2) construction of dams to impound stream
flows;  (3) other types of construction activities; and  (4) resource
recovery operations actually located in streambeds.  In addition, there
are many land development activities which, if not properly controlled,
may result in unintended, and often undesirable, hydrologic modifications.
In many instances these activities result in topographic and ground cover
changes which could affect surface runoff rates, volume and direction
adversely.  Such effects are often experienced in areas undergoing
rapid urbanization.

    Hydrologic modifications may be of local or regional scope, and
are being (or have been) implemented in areas extending throughout
the  nation, affecting both intra-and interstate  waterways.

-------
                                -2-
Description of Hydrologic Modifications

    Hydrologic modifications resulting in nonpoint source pollution are
activities that either directly or indirectly affect,  or have affected,
the natural stream-flow and associated groundwater regime detriment-
ally.  Pollutants are consequently added to the surface and ground
waters from the diffuse runoff, or by  seepage or percolation.   The
levels of many of these pollutants are influenced by climatic events such
as rainfall and the seasonal temperature  changes, in addition to the effects
of soil types and topography, and operating practices.   Reference to
hydrologic modifications as sources of non-point pollution should not be
mis-construed as eliminating them from  consideration as point sources
with respect to certain aspects, which require control under the NPDES
and 404(e) permit programs.

Channel Modifications

    Channel modifications are implemented primarily for flood control,
erosion reduction or for drainage purposes.  Such structural changes
as dikes,  levees, piers, docks, bridges and road fills may require or
result in channel modifications which  would not otherwise have occured.
There are seven different types of modifications which are potential
nonpoint sources of pollutants.  They  are:

    1.  Clearing and snagging operations to restore the former hydraulic
       capacity of a streambed.  This is basically a periodic maintenance
       operation.

    2.  Channel excavations which enlarge and reshape an existing
       channel, or which provide a new channel in its place.

    3.  Channel realignment to eliminate  meanders that have developed
       in the natural streambed.

    4.  Construction of floodways to relieve the streambed of excessive
       flows of storm water.  These are normally dry.

    5.  Construction of retarding basins for the temporary storage of
       excess flows of storm water.

    6.  Construction of debris retention basins to hold back debris
       during periods of high water, which might otherwise result
       in extensive downstream erosion and pollution.

    7.  Construction of drainage ditches or deepening existing ditches.

-------
                                -3-
Impoundments

    Dams are constructed to impound surface waters for water supply,
flood control, fish and wildlife, hydropower,  navigation, irrigation,
flow diversion, low flow augmentation, and combinations of some or all
of these reasons.  They are usually assigned to one of the two following
categories:

    1.   Run-of-the-river impoundments, which characteristically have
       low heads and water detention times limited to  a few days.

    2.  Storage reservoirs, which are usually located on tributaries,
       with high heads,  and encompassing an extensive area outside the
       original channel.

Various Construction Activities

    All types of ground-disturbing construction activities result in
modifications to existing drainage flows, and if not given adequate design
consideration, such hydrologic changes may become sources of water
pollution. Construction nonpoint sources of pollution are the subject
of a separate guidance document,  and will not be covered here  in detail.
When a construction project includes potential nonpoint sources result-
ing from hydrologic modifications, those best management practices
recommended in that document need to be implemented.

Resource Recovery Operations

    The resource recovery activity of primary importance  is that of
the  sand  and gravel operation. However, mineral recovery operations
of any kind which will disturb the existing streambed must  be considered,
as well as should oil and gas wells (exploratory and production), located
in bodies  of water.

Withdrawal  and Recharge Activities

    Surface  and ground water withdrawal and recharge  activities may
produce undesirable effects such as reducing waste assimilative capacity,
damage to fisheries,  saltwater encroachment, surface subsidance, induced
recharge, and mixing of water in aquifers of differing  water  quality.

Other Types of Activities

    Concurrently prepared best management practices  guidelines are
available  for activities incorporating hydrologic modifications in
agriculture,  silviculture and other categories, in addition to construction.
However, best management practices should be applied for all  other
activities involving hydrologic modifications,  even if they are not
specifically identified by guidelines.

-------
                                -4-
Identification of Pollutants

    Six general types of nonpoint source pollutants that result from
hydrologic modifications are:

    1.  Sediment- Sediments are one of the most prevalent non-point
source pollutants, occurring as a result of most types of hydrologic
modification activities to varying degrees.  The degree of pollution
from sediments will vary with streamflow, snowmelt and rainfall runoff,
soil types, and bedload characteristics, and will be most intense during the
period when construction activities have removed vegetative  cover,
until it can become re-established.  Since they are a naturally occuring
phenomenon, present due to erosional processes,  they will normally be
evident to some degree even with application of best management practices
to control manmade sources.   Where the sediments settle, bottom organisms
can be smothered,  and spawning beds can be destroyed.  The increased
turbidity during the transport phase will interfere  with ligh penetration,
hindering photosynthesis, and is a hazard to boaters, swimmers and
water skiers.   Sediments are also carriers of nutrients and pesticides
which may have become  adsorbed to their surfaces.

    2.  Nutrients-Where Hydrologic Modifications  located in  agriculture-          fl
intensive areas  result in increase runoff rates and streamflow velocities,          ^
the natural level of nutrients may be increased.  In urban areas, similar
circumstance will increase nutrient levels  as a result of fertilization of
lawns and gardens, but the  amount of increase will be lower. Soil
erosion also contributes to  the problem by  carrying adsorbed nutrients
well beyond the  areas that would normally be affected.

    3.  Pesticides- A similar pollution problem may be experienced with
respect to pesticides as  was described for  nutrients,  unless  integrated
pest management has been instituted.

    4.   Thermal- This form of pollution may result from channel mod-
ifications or impoundment construction.  Not only is the temperature                *
change that might occur a problem by itself with respect to sensitive
aquatic life, but it can lead to serious changes in the dissolved oxygen
level in the water body.  As an example of  the type of problem that might
be experienced in channel modification, if the normal tree cover is
removed, and the channel is widened to handle design flood flows, the               <
resulting shallow normal flow will be exposed to increased solar radiation,
with attendant temperature  increases,  and  a reduced  capacity for dissolved
oxygen.  Impoundments that become stratified during the summer and
winter may become oxygen  deficient, which can, in turn, cause low
dissolved oxygen problems  downstream of the discharge.

-------
                                -5-
     5.   Chemicals- Hydrologic modifications such as dredging, with the
attendant necessity to suitably dispose of the spoil, may result in
release of pollutant chemicals from the spoil through leaching
or percolation.  The fines re-suspended in the streambed are another
potential source of pollution if adsorbed chemicals are released.  Changes
in pH and dissolved oxygen levels that may occur in impoundments may
cause release into solution of certain types of chemicals previously
insoluble.  Modifications that lowered the groundwater table sufficiently
in coastal areas could result in saltwater intrusion into a freshwater
aquifer,  with attendant salinity degradation.

     Chemical stabilization techniques applied for control of fugitive
dust and/or nonpoint source pollution will require coordination.
Techniques selected must be complementary,  rather than conflicting, with
the choice of action selected being that which produces the best total end
result, with  respect to control of both nonpoint source pollution and
fugitive dust.

    6.   Microorganisms - Modifications  could result in pathogenic
microorganisms entering the water from runoff or percolation and
seepage.  Changes in the existing flow regime must consider the effect
on potential sources of such organisms.

Considerations For  Best Management  Practices Selection

    Best Management Practices for hydrologic modifications is the most
practical and effective measure, or combination of measures, which
will prevent  or reduce the generation of  pollutants, upon implementation,
to a level compatible with water quality goals.

    The BMP selected for a specific hydrologic modification will not
necessarily be the same in different areas of the country.   Soil types,
topography,  climate, existing condition, local zoning and land use
regulations,  etc., must be considered in assessing the problem.  The
final determination of which BMP alternatives to apply in any specific
case must suit the site conditions, and include appropriate  public part-
icipation.  BMP must be considered at the earliest stage  practicable,
and throughout the problem identification and analysis planning, design
and  construction phases.

    The principal  emphasis should be  placed on measures that will
prevent, or minimize nonpoint source pollutants which would be
generated by the specific hydrologic modification.  All preventive measures
must be fully integrated into the total management system for every
hydrologic modification.  In brief, the changes introduced should
produce conditions similar to those existing in nature which past
experience has proved will effectively control the potential  pollutants,
and maintain or improve the water quality, while avoiding changes which
would be detrimental.

-------
                                -6-
    As in other areas of nonpoint source pollution, erosion control
measures are an essential feature of most hydrologic modifications.
Controlling sediment-bearing runoff will reduce the  amount of adsorbed
nutrients,  pesticides and other chemicals that reach the nation's
waters.  Designs for modification must recognize this problem and
provide suitable construction provisions as a part of the project.
(With respect to pesticides,  integrated pest management must be
given suitable consideration. ) Subsequent operation and maintenance
activities must continue to apply best management practices to assure
the continued success of the pollution prevention measures.

    The potential for thermal pollution problems must be assessed
for some types of hydrologic modifications, and suitable control
measures must be applied.   The choice of type of modification may
even be determined by the need to control pollution of this  type.,

Prevention and Reduction Measures

    The measures which can be applied to hydrologic modifications to
prevent or reduce pollutants from reaching surface or ground waters
may be vegetative, structural or institutional or a combination,, in
addition to those mentioned for agriculture, silviculture, etc.,  in the
documents developed for pollutants  related to those activities.,  Institut-
ional measures relating to land use should not be overlooked, but will
be more easily applied in non-urbanized locations.   The variety of
structural  and vegetative control measures will be discussed in detail
in applicable sections of this handbook.

-------
                            DRAFT
                             1 3 DFC 1375
                BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
                  MINING NONPOINT SOURCES
                      WATER POLLUTION
    Mining activities in the United States have affected approxi-
mately 13 million acres of land according to estimates by the U.  S.
Department of the Interior.   This acreage includes almost 7 million
acres which have been undercut by mining activities, and more than
3 million acres disturbed by surface mining activities.   The remaining
acreage  represents land used for containing mining-related mineral
waste accumulations.  By the year 2000,  the Department of the Interior
estimates that 30 million acres will be affected by mining operations.
While the land area presently affected by mining  represents  only about
0.5% of the United States,  the effects of mining upon water quantity
and quality are spread over large regions.

Introduction

    Pollution from mining operations  arises because the hydrology of
surface and subsurface waters is altered when the earth's crust is
disturbed to gain access to mineral values held within.   The quality
of these waters very often deteriorates,  and the quantity is  often re-
disturbed as a result of mining operations.  Water quality deteriorates
when water supplies are contaminated with soluble products  present in
or generated from mining wastes.  Water quantity is affected because
natural drainage patterns for surface and subsurface waters are  altered.
Any-disturbance of the earth's crust will alter the environment in the
vicinity of the disturbance.   The  degree to which the environment is
altered depends upon the size and depth of the disturbance, the method
of the disturbance, and the nature of the disturbed materials.  The
purpose of disturbing the earth in mining is to extract mineral deposits.
Methods  used are determined by the placement of the minerals in the
earth.  Similarly, size and depth of the mine are determined by the
distribution of the mineral at the mining site.

    The extraction of minerals from the earth's crust can be accomplished
by a variety of techniques.  For minerals deep in the earth,  mine shafts
are sunk to gain access to the deposit.  This method is  usually not
used if mineral deposits are  available for recovery by surface  mining
techniques.  Underground mining techniques tend to retrieve most of
the  values in the deposit compared to surface mining techniques.

    Surface mining creates more visible defacement of the earth's surface,
and results in disturbance of large land curves.

-------
                                                DRAFT
                                                 1 8 DEC 1375

    The most serious pollutant arising from mining activities is the
mine drainage generated by oxidation of pyritic materials with air in the
presence of water;  this drainage is an  acidic mixure of iron salts,
other salts and sulfuric acid.   Mine drainage arises from both
underground and surface mining sources, and from coal and many
metal mining operations.  Coal deposits and so-called hard rock mineral
deposits are commonly associated with pyrite and marcasite, which are
disulfides of iron.  Acid mine drainage can find its way into surface
waters, where the acid and  sulfate  may result in severe deterioration
in stream quality.  The acid can react with clays to yield aluminum
concentrations sufficient for fish kills,  and with limestone to yield
very hard waters expensive to soften.   The acid can also selectively
extract heavy  metals present in trace quantities in mineral arid soil
formations, resulting in toxic conditions in lakes and streams.

    Mining refuse waste materials left near the mining site after
raw minerals have been cleaned or concentrated is another source of
pollution.   Much of this refuse contains pyritic material which can be
oxidized to acidic substances.  The resultant acid water may remain
in the pile until a rainstorm, at which time it is flushed into nearby
watercourses.  Mine drainage "slugs" during storms are very detrimental
to aquatic life in surface waters.

    Mining operations also generate wastes,  commonly called spoil, in
the form of disturbed rock and soil. If this spoil is left in piles,  erosion
and runoff will carry sediment into streams.   This sediment is capable
of destroying life in streams,  results in decreased capacity of streams
and reservoirs, and destroys  fish and wildlife habitats.

    Improperly impounded sediment may be released suddenly as  a
mud slide and thus poses  a direct threat to life and property.

    Mining activities have a pronounced effect  on groundwater supplies.
The various operations used to mine the mineral deposits can result
in alteration of groundwater distribution patterns.  Aquifers containing
good water can become contaminated because some mining may
disturb bedrock formations, which permit mixing of contaminated water
with good.

Description of Mining Pollution


    Water pollution caused by  drainage  from mining activities occurs
 when dissolved,  suspended, or other solid mineral wastes and debris
from mining and related operations enter receiving streams or ground
water.  Mine drainage includes both water flowing by gravity or pumped
from underground mines, and runoff or seepage from surface mines
and from excavated waste materials. Polluting drainage is often corrosive,
highly mineralized,  toxic to aquatic life,  and may be laden with chemical
and/or soil sediments.

-------
                                -3-
                                                 I

                                                  1 8 DEC 1975


    Pollutants may be generated during all phases of the mining cycle
whether the commodity is coal, sand and gravel, uranium, metallic ore
or nonmetallic ore;  exploration, development, mine  operation, closure,
and reclamation.  In many cases, water pollution can continue long
after a mine has ceased operation. Pollution caused by inactive or
abandoned mines ("orphans") presents special problems of abatement.

    Mine drainage pollutants include such  dissolved and suspended
constituents as acid, alkali,  iron, copper, arsenic,  cadmium, nickel,
phosphate, sulfate,  chloride, radioactive  minerals,  sediment, and colloidal
contaminants.  The acids, alkalies, metals,  and other minerals in mine
drainage affect water quality and water use in various ways.  To many
the most dramatic effects of mine drainage pollution are the  destruction
of fish and other aquatic life and impairment to aesthetic features. Mine
drainage pollution may  affect the use of water for municipal, industrial
 and agricultural water supply by increasing the costs for water treatment.

Identification of Sources of Pollutants

    Various active unit  operations within a surface or underground
mining operation produce pollutants that can ultimately enter both
surface and ground waters causing a lowering of water quality. The
discharge of pollutants  from certain of these unit operations  have been
classified as point sources by EPA, and certain of them have been classified
classified as nonpoint sources.  Inactive and abandoned mine sites
can be considered nonpoint sources.

    Nonpoint pollution from mining activities are strongly dependent on
precipitation events although there may be a significant response delay
when the ground water is the source of seepage water. The sources may
be intermittent or continuous in nature. The nature and amount of pollutants
are dependent on such factors as soil type, topography,  geology, method
of mining, and hydrologic characteristics  of the site.

Mining Activities

    The basic mining activities that are potential causes of nonpoint
pollution sources are:

      Exploration is conducted to locate a seam or other economic
deposit and to obtain quantity/quality data  on that deposit. Site access,

-------
                                                  \
excavation,  and drilling activities can cause surface denudation and
erosion, mineralized ground water discharge, leaching of exposed
mineralogic mater Lais, and chemicals seepage or release.

        Construction of the mine and support facilities including roads
can be a major generator of pollutants.

        Runoff and seepage of ground or surface waters may contact mineral
matter exposed by the operation and result in mineralized drainage.  Slides
of unstable spoil piles or  disturbed steep slopes  can occur causing further
landscape and stream damages.

         Following the mining operation the improper sealing of underground
mines as well as unsucessful revegetation and reclamation of inactive
surface mines,

Pollutant Generation and  Their Causes

    Land disturbed hy surface mining is a major source of sediment  in
mining regions. Studies have shown that erosion and sedimentation rates
on strip-mined land  are 500 times as great as those on neighboring land
that has not been stripped.  Overburden dumped on the downslope areas
is one of the largest sources of sediment. The post-operative mining
period can be  tiie period of most  severe erosion. When eroded  sediment
is transported to a receiving stream it can smother bottom organisms,
interfere with photosynthesis by reducing light penetration,  and contribute
to flooding by  filling stream channels.

    Acid mine waters result from oxidation of pyrite and other  iron-bearing
minerals in deposits of anthracite and bituminous coals.  The reaction
of these exposed sulfur-bearing minerals (usually sulfides) with
atmospheric oxygen  and water frequently forms a sulfuric acid solution
that reacts with soil and rock materials to leach out other pollutants,
commonly metals. The acidic water can be toxic to aquatic life and corrosive
to manmade structures.

    Dissolved  minerals contained in mine waters can be present in sufficient
concentrations to be toxic to aquatic life. Heavy metals such as copper,
nickel and zinc may  be present in toxic concentrations, as well as chloride,
sulfate, or other troublesome ions.  Even though one or more constituents
is not present in toxic amounts considered singly, toxic conditions can
result from synergestic effects among various constituents.

    The total mineralization, total dissolved solids  content, of a water
can present a  salinity problem.  It normally occurs when salts contained
in geologic formations are penetrated by  mining and the resulting saline
mine  runoff waters enter  into receiving streams or ground waters.
Aquatic life can be harmed and expensive treatment may be required
for certain uses of that water.

-------
                                ""0 ~*
    The control of water pollution from mining activities is achieved
through proper operational management and utilization of preventive
techniques, and by mine water treatment. Control of mining nonpoint
pollution sources is best achieved through prevention or avoidance. The
utilization of preventive and management techniques is the primary thrust
for the control of nonpoint mining pollutants.

    There are four premises upon which mining pollution control of
nonpoint sources is based:

    1.  That any disturbance of the  earth for mineral extraction alters
the hydrologic environment to form some amount of water pollutants;

    2.  That each mine site represents a unique set of chemical/physical
and hydrologic conditions;

    3.  That effective and efficient environmental protection from mining
impact requires a total mining plan before  extraction occurs that  covers
management control and preventive measures implementation throughout
the mining cycle.   Thus,  the plan must cover activities initiated and
implemented during the pre-extraction and extraction phases,  and
conclude after extraction has terminated and adequate restoration of the
site has been accomplished;

    4.  That a combination of several management and engineering techniques
is usually required to effect a complete pollution control plan that prevents
or minimizes pollutants reaching ground or surface waters.

Basis For Best Management Practices Development for Mining Activities

     "Best Management Practices" (BMP) means a practice,  or combination
of practices, that is determined after problem assessment and examination
 of alternative practices,  to be the most effective, practicable (including
technological, economic,  and institutional considerations) means of preventing
or reducing the amount of pollution generated by nonpoint sources to a
level compatible with water quality goals.

     Best Management Practices for mining activities are the  most practical
and effective measures, or combination of measures,  which when applied
to a mine production s1te,will prevent or reduce the generation of pollutants
to a level compatible with water quality goals.

    Each identified BMP will differ with the kind of mining, geographic
area and conditions, and the extent and age of the mine.  A new mine may
have a different BMP than an older mine in the same locale.  BMP
judgements for any specific  site will recognize special problems such
as poor soils, unstable slopes,  toxic conditions, and unfavorable geologic
structure. Existing regulatory requirements, future land use,  and economic
effects will influence BMP developments.

-------
                                                     1 8 DEC 1975


   There are a wide variety of measures available that will materially
reduce the amount of pollutants generated at a surface or underground
mine site.  Selection and blending of the appropriate measures through
the mining cycle can be categorized in terms of four objectives.

    1.  Prevention of an increase in the mineralization of the  ground or
surface waters intercepted by earth disturbance activities:

    The quantity and quality of  mine water produced can be greatly influenced
by various techniques of surface  diversion, subsurface dewatering and
collection, segregration of toxic  mineral matter,  and proper management
and handling of intercepted water.

    2.  Minimization of erosion and sediment transport from  all
surfaces necessarily removed  of cover:

    Erosion and sediment transport are problems of surface mining and
surface facilities of underground mining. Measures to mitigate these
phenomena should include grading, compaction, sediment traps and early
revegetation of disturbed areas.

    3.  Careful residuals management of all mining wastes to prevent
leaching and erosion:

    Measures to control the adverse affects of residual materials  stored
on the land surface are generally the same as those used in water diversion
and erosion control.

    4.  Prevention of post-operative pollution via  proper mine closure
and/or reclamation measures:

    Mine closure and land reclamation are critical processes in the total
mining plan.  Closure of underground mines to prevent continued polluting
drainage is more difficult than surface activity but a number  of sealing
and diversion techniques are effective in preventing or reducing continuing
problems.  A multitude of surface  reclamation practices are effective
and available.  They can be classed as measures  to segregate overburden
and bury toxic materials, return topsoil, control  erosion  and sedimentation,
moderate topography, stabilize disturbed areas, and permanently revegetate
the area.

                       Information Sources

    EPA has published various reports describing methods for management
practices and preventive techniques for the control of pollutants from
mining activities.  The titles of current publications include:
                                                                             t

-------
                               -?-                    1 8 DEC 1??5


    o   Processes,  Procedures, and Methods to Control Pollution
        from Mining Activities, EPA-430/9-73-011, October 1973 .

    o   Methods for Identifying and Evaluating the  Nature and  Extent
        of Nonpoint Sources of Pollutants, EPA-430/9-73-014,
        October 1973-

    o   Analysis of Pollution Control Costs, EPA-670/2-74-009,
        February 1974.

    o   Environmental Protection in Surface Mining of Coal,
        EPA-670/2-74-093, October 1974.

    o   Inactive and Abandoned Underground Mines, Water Pollution
        Prevention and Control, EPA-440/9-75-007,  June 1975.

    o   Criteria for Developing Pollution Abatement Programs
        for Inactive  and Abandoned Mine Sites, EPA-440/9-75-009,
        August 1975.

    o   Compilation of Federal, State  and Local Laws Controlling
        Nonpoint Pollutants,  EPA-440/9-75-011,  September 1975 .

    Additional information on features  and design of specific measures
is available in the publications and handbooks of other Federal and State
agencies and in various mining industry publications.

    EPA is committed to the management, prevention and control of
pollutants from mining sources.  Authority exists under sections 208,  209,
303 (e) and 313 of P. L.  92-500 for EPA to initiate  a  program  in conjunction
with the States to manage nonpoint sources, although the the primary
 responsibility for nonpoint source management rests  with the States.
Establishment and implementation of nonpoint  source  management programs
will be a part of the  areawide  planning process in designated 208 areas
as well  as a part of the State water quality management responsibilities
in non-designated areas.

    Point Sources of Mining Pollutants will be  controlled thru the National
Pollution Discharge  Elimination System Permit Program.

-------
                                                            '
                                                         Us
                      Best Management Practices                   \x)i':'
                   Silvi cultural Nonpoint Sources of
                          Water  Pollution
    Silviculture is the cultivation and harvesting of timber for commercial
purposes.  As  such,  the term includes all activities related co its
purpose from the planting of seeds, through those involved in the maturing
of the crop, its harvest and transportation from the growing area.  In
addition to being performed on approximately 500 million acres of
commercial forest land utilized  for the continuous produclion of marketable
timber, portions of the overall silvicultural activity take plac-~> on a number
of lands being transferred from  a wooded state to another use.

Introduction

    This guidance  is intended to  provide information regarding the control
of pollution from silvicultural nonpoint sources,  and to sirpplament
information regarding control of silvicultural associated discharges
regulated under the provisions of the NPDES and 404(e) permit programs.

    Silvicultural activities can result in the development of significant
sources of pollutants which may reach surface or ground water,  most
often due to a climatic event,  although certain construction or hydrographic
modification activities have been recognized under the 404(e) program
as being essentially due to a specific activity of man.

    While  all silvicultural activities are inter-related,  those activities
producing pollutants can be divided into four classes: (1) Access  systems
(log roads and  other access and  transport systems); (2) harvesting; (3)
crop regeneration; and (4) intermediate practices and activities.  The
amount of pollutants generated by these activities are strongly dependent
upon the magnitude and characteristics of climatic events,  the physical
characteristics of the area (soil type, topography, etc, ), and the
characteristics of the individual operations as they are practiced in a
specific area.

Description of  Silvicultural Activities

    The four general classes of activities associated with silviculture which
may produce pollutants are:

    1.  Access  Systems-  The forest access road system is constructed to
provide access for man,  materials and equipment to product]on units
and to  serve as routes for transport of harvested logs from the
production unit.  Such roads are also used for management and
protection of successive timber  crops, and for other access purposes,
including recreation.  In  terms of construction, these roads range

-------
-2-
from very narrow trails,  through unsurfaced roads to higher speed
paved roads.  The frequency of use is highly variable ranging from
intensive use to only occasional usage over a number of years.

    Nationally, and in certain specifications the forest road system
is the major contributor of sediment to the streams in forested areas.
These sediment loads may originate as a result of road  construction
(including stream crossings), direct erosion from the roads, indirect
erosion caused by changes in drainage patterns and systems, and
mass soil movement due to slides and slips.

    In addition to the sediment  problems, additional pollution problems
may be  created due to  debris (organic pollution) resulting from construction
and log  transport, and from herbicides used to control re-growth in
the  right-of-way.

    2.  Harvesting Systems-- The harvest system includes the process
of felling the tree, preparing it by de-limbing and cutting into desired
lengths, and moving it to  a central accessable location for transport
out  of the forested area.  The four basic harvest systems used in the
United States include seed tree, shelterwood, selection  and clear-cutting.

    The harvesting of timber results in removal of cover, to some degree,
from the forest floor.  Improper choice (or performance) of the  harvesting
system  may seriously  increase the erosion phenomena and consequently,
the  potential for sediment pollution.   Similarly soil movement may occur
due to increased percolation resulting from removal of the vegetative cover.

    After felling, the timber is moved (yarded) to a temporary storage site
or "landing" by one of  three basic general methods--tractor (on skid trails).
high lead, or skyline cable.  Recently, timber producers have also exper-
imented with ballon and helicopter.  Obviously, the magnitude, the disturbance
of earth, and vegetative cover  would be  reflected on the erosive  tendency
with its consequent danger of sediment pollution.  Each  system,  when
properly chosen and operated can minimize environmental problems.

    In addition to the sediment  pollution, the harvesting  system can create
organic pollution problems due to debris and slash washed from the forest
floor or otherwise reaching streams,  pollution due to various chemicals
used in  the growing and harvesting operation, and thermal pollution due to
removal of the canopy  over streams.

    3.   Crop Regeneration-  Regeneration of a harvested area includes both
the  natural regenerative process and man's activities in preparing and improving
the  site followed by planting  or reseeding.  The major activities include (a)
debris removal to reduce fire hazard and allow use of equipment for sub-
sequent operations,  (b) reduction or removal of brush cover and undesireable
species of trees and, (c)  cultivation of the soils.
                                                I

-------
                                -3-
    The use of fire, chemicals and soil disturbing machinery increase
the potential for sediment and other pollution to occur.  The time span
for such pollution to occur is variable depending upon the climatic factors
and operational schedule.

    4.  Intermediate Practices -  Other silvicultural processes relating to
thinning of an immature forest, fertilizer application and pesticide treatments
are undertaken during the crop cycle.   In general these activities are
infrequent during the crop cycle.

    The thinning process involves the removal of selected trees from
an immature forest, in essence a type of harvesting, which would tend to
generate sediment pollution,  but at a lesser  rate than harvesting.

    Chemical application, (fertilizers and pesticides) can result in water
pollution, if improperly carried out or adversely affected by extreme and
unexpected natural event.

Pollutants Originating from Silvicultural Activities

    The principle pollutants generated by silvicultural activities are
sediments and debris; chemicals,  including nutrients,  pesticides,  and
fire retardants; and thermal effects.  The  origin of the pollutants is generally
related to more than one of the activities of the total silvicultural operation.

    1.  Sediment - - Sediments are the most common pollutants resulting
from silvicultural activities.   The sediments principally result from the
erosion of soils, but may also include debris and other organic waste.
Sediments upset balanced ecology within streams by  smothering bottom
organisms in water bodies through the formation of bottom blankets,
interfere  with the photosynthesis processes by reducing light pentration,
serve as carriers of nutrients and pesticides,  inhibit fish reproduction of
many important species, and by altering stream flow and speed.

   2.   Nutrients-- Nutrients, above the natural levels of an area, generally
result from the application of fertilizers.  Soluble nutrients may reach
surface or ground water through runoff, seepage, and percolation.   Insoluble
forms  may be adsorbed on soil particles and reach surface water through
erosion processes.  Nutrients may also reach  surface water by direct washoff
of slash,  debris, and recently applied fertilizer.  Excessive nutrients can
lead to imbalance in the natural life cycles of water bodies  and in some cases
can be a health hazard.

    3.  Pesticides -- Pesticides applied during forest management activites
may be insoluble or soluble.  The  entrance of pesticides into the surface
or ground waters follows approximately the same pattern as nutrients.
Pesticides may result in acute toxicity  problems in the water bodies; or
insidious toxicity problems through the entire food chain from lowest to the
highest forms of life.

-------
                                -4-
    4.   Organic Pollutants-- Debris,!, e.,  slash and other non--
merchanable materials, are the principle organic  pollutants that result
from silvicultural activities.  The pollutants may reach surface waters
through direct dumping, wash off,  and leachate from log storage.  The
organic materials place an oxygen demand on the receiving waters
during their decomposition.  In addition they may lead to other problems
such as tastes, odors,  color, and nutrients.

    5.  Thermal--  Thermal pollution from  silvicultural activities most
often results from the removal  of canopy cover from stream bodies
causing water temperature to rise.   Temperature  is a significant water
quality parameter.  It strongly  influences dissolved oxygen concentrations
and bacteria populations in streams.  The saturated dissolved oxygen
concentrations in streams is inversely related to temperature.

Best Management Practices for Pollution from Silviculture

    Best Management Practices for silvicultural sources is the most
practical and effective measure or combination of  measures which,  when
applied to the forest management  unit, will  prevent or reduce the
generation of pollutants to a level compatible with  water quality goals.

    In BMP selection, it should be recognized that the variability in
sources, topography, climate,  soils, etc., will in  most cases preclude
a single BMP covering all activities or situations.  The BMP must be
tailored to the needs of the particular source and physical conditions.

    The principle emphasis should be placed on measures that will
prevent or reduce the pollutants in the runoff, seepage, or percolation
from the forest management unit.  The preventive measures must be
fully integrated into the total management system for the particular
forest  management unit.  In essence, the soils,  nutrients, pesticides,
and other chemicals must be kept on the land area where they perform
their intended function of assisting tree  growth.

    Because of the widespread nature of sediment runoff,  erosion control
measures must be a principle thrust of the preventive program of each
management unit.  Particular attention must be paid to erosion prevention
measures for logging roads and harvesting activities.  In addition to primary
control measures,  supplemental measures such as debris and sediment
basins should be  included where necessary to further reduce or prevent the
entrance of sediments, slash, and debris into water bodies.  Where nutrients,
pesticides  and other chemicals  cause particular problems in surface or
ground waters, further control  measures may be necessary.  The measures
would principally relate to the application (timing, method, and amount),
utilization,  and management of  the fertilizers,  pesticides, and fire retardant
chemicals.  Care must be exercised to insure that thermal problems  in
streams are not created by removal of shade canopy.  Attention to proper
forest  management, engineering and harvesting principles can substantially
reduce all pollution attributable to silviculture.

-------
                                -5-
Prevention and Reduction Measures

    The measures which can be applied to a timber management unit
to prevent or reduce pollutants from reaching surface and/or ground
waters can be classified as two (2) general types.  These are (1) non-
structural or management decision measures, and (2) structural or
physical measures.

    Management decision measures involve incorporation of water
quality protection considerations into the planning and design of activites
within the timber management unit.  It is at this stage that  logging access
roads locations and design, harvesting methods, and reforestation
decisions  must be made.  Structural measures generally involve some
physical method or technique utilized to reduce erosion and  prevent
sediment  runoff.

    Nonstructural measures can be effective methods of reducing pollution
generated by silvicultural activities, e.g. :

    A.  Pollution emenating from access  systeriis may be greatly decreased
        by careful location,  design,  construction and maintance of the roads.
        The importance of not utilizing waterways or normally wet areas as
        part of the road-access system cannot be over emphasized.

    B.  Pollution caused by the harvesting operation can be reduced,
        under certain soil conditions, by mininizing the disturbance or
        compaction of the soil. Careful location and use of  skid trails,
        particular when the ground is wet, will reduce sediment gen-
        eration due to the skidding operation.  As in the case of roads,
        skid trails should not be located in normally wet areas, nor should
        they utilize streams as part  of the route. Like road, the trails
        should follow the countour of the  land rather than provide long steep
        grades.   Careful handling of debris will prevent accumulation,
        which tend to act as dams in streams, and which on breakup, result
        in high stream  velocities causing channel erosion.   Early re veget-
        ation of disturbed areas will provide stabilization of the soil,  thus
        minimizing erosion.

   C.   Pollution caused by the regeneration activity and intermediate
        practices can be minimized by application of proper techniques
        under favorable  conditions by well trained and supervised
        personnel.  Additional techniques, such as provisions of buffer
        strips along streams may be useful.

-------
                               -6-
    Structural measures are utilized when necessary to further reduce
erosion and prevent sediment runoff.   These measures include culverts,
ditches, berms, catch basins,  slope stablization, and various road
building techniques.

Information Sources

    Reduction measures and preventive techniques are generally
described in "Processes, Procedures, and Methods to Control
Pollution Resulting from Silvicultural  Activities" , EPA 420/9-73-010.
More Specific information on logging roads is contained in "Logging
Roads and  Protection of Water Quality", EPA 910/9-75-008,  Region X,
Environmental Protection Agency.  Additional information on features
and design of specific measures and management practices may be
obtained from other Federal agencies, State agencies,  and various
forestry associations and publications.

-------
                 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
              CONSTRUCTION NONPOINT SOURCES
                      WATER POLLUTION
    Construction is a broad category covering the alteration and
development of land for a different use including the installation of
structures on the land. The types of projects within the category
generally have two common characteristics,  namely; (1) They involve
soil disturbance, resulting in modification of the physical,  chemical,
and biological properties,of the land; and  (2)  They are short-lived in the
sense that the "construction phase" closes when the development and
building activities are completed.  Storm waters should be  controlled
for the life of the facilities to protect downstream areas.

                        Introduction

    This guidance  is intended to provide information regarding the control
of pollution from nonpoint  source construction activities,  and to supplement
information regarding control of construction associated descharges
under the provisions of NPDES and Section 404(e) of the FWPCA.

    Construction activities can result in the development of significant
sources of pollutants which may reach  surface or ground waters.  About
one million acres  of land are being disturbed for construction purposes
each year in the United States.  Pollution resulting from these construction
areas can be catastrophic in downstream areas, particularly in small
drainages. This statement is intended to provide guidance in the control
of construction nonpoint sources and for the selection of pollution prevention
or reduction measures that are useful in reaching water quality goals.

    Construction nonpoint sources are the land development and building
projects that result in the runoff, seepage or percolation of pollutants to
the surface and ground waters.   The runoff of pollutants generated by
the project is strongly dependent  on climatic  events such as rainfall or
snowmelt. In general, the  runoff  is intermittent and does not provide
a continuous discharge.   The nature of the pollutants depends on the
particular activities underway at  the time of the rainfall or snowmelt.
Both the nature and amount of pollutants are also dependent on other
factors such as soil types, topography, project characteristics, and the
number of people and equipment involved.

Description of Construction Activities

    There are many types of projects that fall within the construction
category.  They generally can be classified into the following sub-
categories:

    1.  Land Development -- Land development involves the construction
of housing subdivisions, shopping centers, schools, recreation areas,
and related facilities.  The areal extent of the land affected is generally
large although a project may be completed in segments.  Topographic
slopes are usually gentle with cut and fill sections relatively minor.

-------
                               -2-
    2.  Transportation and Communication Networks  -- Construction of
transportation and communication facilities involves disturbance of the
land principally in a linear direction.  Areas may be  quite large but the
width of the disturbed areas  is minor compared to their linear extent.
These facilities often are located in areas of high relief where slopes
may be steep and rugged. Climatic differences are extremely diverse
in many of these areas with torrential rains prevalent in higher altitudes.

    3.  Water Resource Facilities --  Construction of water resource
facilities involves disturbing the ground surface for installation of dams,
aqueducts and their appurtenant structures.  Dams may be loca.ted in
relatively steep river valleys or  canyons,  or in areas of fairly low relief.
Aqueducts have  a great linear extent and are generally located along
valley or foothill areas.  Climatic differences at these sites may be
extremely variable with intense rainfall occurring in mountain areas.

    Dams in higher topographic areas may be underlain by hard,  non-
erodible bedrock. Dams and aqueducts in lower areas generally are
located in erodible soils and/or parent materials.

    4.  Other -- Construction of factories, major office buildings,
airports, power plants,  etc. is included in this subcategory.  Except for
airports, the areal extent of these facilities is generally limited and
almost all require extensive subsurface excavation. They are generally
located in areas of fairly low relief with relatively low cut and fill slopes
involved.

Identification of Pollutants

    Sediment, resulting from erosion of disturbed soils on construction
sites,  is one of the principal pollutants.  It includes solid mineral and
organic materials which are transported by runoff water,  wind,  ice, or
the effect of gravity.  Chemical pollutants derived from construction
activities originate from inorganic and organic sources and occur in solid
form such  as asphalt, boards, fibers, or metals; or  in liquid form such
as paints,  oils,  glues, pesticides, and fertilizers. Biological pollutants
include organisms resulting from soils, animal, or human origins. They
may be bacteria, fungi,  or viruses.  Excess storm water runoff can be a
severe cause of pollution. It results from changed conditions due to
construction activities.

    1.  Sediment -- Sediment exerts physical, chemical and biological
effects on the receiving stream and water bodies. Physical damage
resulting from sediment deposition includes: reduction of  reservoir
storage capacity,  filling harbors and navigation channels, increasing the
frequency of flooding and causing bank erosion,  increasing turbidity in

-------
                                -3-


water and reducing light penetration,  increasing the cost of water
treatment,  damaging  fish life, destroying and covering organisms on
the bottom of streams, reducing the flowing speed and carrying capacity
of streams,  and impairing operation of drainage ditches, culverts, and
bridges, altering the shape and direction of stream channels, destroying
water recreational areas, and imparting undesirable taste to water.

    2.  Chemicals  --  The major categories  of chemical pollutants
are: petroleum products, pesticides,  fertilizers, synthetic materials,
metals, soil additives, construction chemicals,  and miscellaneous  wastes
from construction.

    Some petroleum products impart a persistent odor and taste to water,
impairing its use  for  drinking water  and  contact sports.  Many oils have
the ability to block the  transfer of  air from the atmosphere into water,
resulting in the suffocation of  aquatic  plants, organisms, and fish.  Some
petroleum products contain quantities of organo-metallic compounds
(nickel,  vanadium, lead, iron, arsenic) and other impurities which can
be toxic  to fish and other organisms.

    The three most commonly used pesticides  at construction sites are
herbicides, insecticides, and  rodenticides.  The unnecessary or improper
application of these pesticides may  result in direct contamination of water,
or indirect pollution by dirt which settles in surface waters, or transport
off soil surfaces into water.

    Nitrogen and phosphorous  are the  major plant nutrients used for the
successful establishment of vegetation on disturbed soils of construction
sites.  Heavy use of commercial fertilizers can result in these materials
reaching water bodies to accelerate the eutrophication process.

    The construction industry  utilizes many different types  of synthetic
products.  These include structural frames, window  panes,  wall board,
paints,  and many others.  Heavy duty construction materials are synthesized
from nondegradable organic  materials.  They are little affected by biological
or chemical degradation agents, and are usually designed to withstand the
most severe physical  conditions.

    The concern over  metal pollution  of water bodies is associated mostly
with the  heavy metals (mercury, lead, zinc, silver,  cadmium,  arsenic,
copper,  aluminum,  iron,  etc.  ).  Metals  are used extensively in construction
activities for structural frames, wiring, ducts, pipes, beams,  and many
other uses.  Construction vehicles, gasoline,  paints, pesticides, fungicides,
and construction chemicals are also potential sources of heavy metals pollutants.
When these latter materials  are weathered, decomposed and disintegrated
by various agents,  they ultimately form oxides and salts that can affect
aquatic organisms.

-------
                                -4-
    Soil additives are chemicals and materials that are applied to the soil
during construction activities in order to obtain desired soil characteristics.
Often construction  activities cover large areas consisting of several
different types of soils.   The nature of soils is dependent on the climatic,
topographic and geological conditions.  The type of soil additive applied
depends on the objectives of the construction activities.  Soils may vary from
one location to another in the amount of water they contain, particle  size
distribution (clays, silt,  sand and gravel), water infiltration rate, ability
to support heavy structures, and resistance to compaction by construction
equipment.  Soil additives are used to control the  amount of moisture
absorbed  by roadway surfaces,  to reduce the degree of shrinking  and
expanding of clay soils in order to prevent structural damage of buildings
and air field runways, and to increase the firmness of soils.  Several
materials are used to obtain desired soil properties.   Commonly  used
materials include lime,  fly ash, asphalt,  phosphoric  acid,  salt, and
calcium chloride.   The soil additives  carried in runoff from construction
sites alter the quality of receiving waters. However,  little work  has been
conducted to show the net environmental  effects of these soil additives.

    Many  other chemicals are used  in construction for purposes such as:
pasting boards together,  sealing cracks, surface treatment, solvents for
oils and paints, and dyeing and  cleaning.  The amounts of chemicals
leaving construction sites as pollutants have not been established,,  Poor
construction activities that are  liable to contaminate water  resources include
the following practices: dumping of  excess chemicals and wash water
into storm water sewers; indiscriminate discharging  of undiluted  or
unneutralized chemicals; disregard for proper handling procedures
resulting  in major  or minor spills at the construction site;  and leaking
storage containers and construction equipment.

    Miscellaneous pollutants include concrete wash from concrete mixers,
acid and alkaline solutions from exposed soil or rock units  high in acid,
and alkaline -forming natural elements.  Cuts through coal beds have
resulted in the seepage of mine acids  into streams. High lime areas
often increase the alkalinity of receiving waters.

    3.  Biological Materials —  Biological pollutants from construction
include soil organisms and organisms  of human and animal origin.   They
include bacteria, fungi, and viruses. The majority of biological pollutants
are found in the topsoil layer where they can feed on dead plants,  animals,
birds and other organisms.

    The biological  pollutants resulting from  construction activity indicate
that the greatest pollution potential  are of animal and human origin.  They
are  more prevalent  on  construction  sites where  improper sanitary
conditions exist.

-------
                                 -5-
            Basis For Best Management-Practices Development

    Best Management Practices for construction are the most practical
and effective measure or combination of measures which,  when applk d
to the land development or building project, will prevent or reduce the
runoff of pollutants to a level compatible with water quality goals.

    Since the amount of pollutant runoff from construction  sites depends
on numerous variables such as the type of construction involved, the
quantity and intensity of rainfall,  the soil characteristics,  etc. , it is
recognized that those particular types  of control measures that will pre-
vent this runoff must be  installed  on the site.  The proper  mix of control
measures must be established on  site-specific basis.  Whether they are
properly installed and maintained must be checked by on-site inspection
as there is no way that effluent monitoring  can accomplish this.

    Best Management Practices for construction activities consist, of
measures which will prevent the movement of pollutants from construction
sites. While  sediment is the principal  pollutant resulting from earth-
disturbing construction activities, chemicals, hydrocarbons, solid
wastes, and other materials must also be considered.

Description of  Preventive and Reduction Measures

    There are essentially three basic measures for controlling the runoff
of sediment from construction sites.  They include: d) preventing erosion
of exposed soil surfaces, (2) restricting the transport of eroded particles,
and (3) trapping sediments being transported. Measures developed for
controlling movement of sediment and  other materials by water generally
are also useful for controlling that generated by wind action.

    Preventing erosion of exposed soil surfaces is achieved by protecting
these surfaces with such coverings as mulch; sheets of plastic, fiberglass
roving,  burlap, rock blankets, or jute  netting; temporary growths of fast-
growing grasses; or sod blankets. Mulch consists of hay,  straw,  wood
chips, bark,  or any  other suitable protective material.  Sheets of plastic
and netting materials are generally used on steep slopes where vegetation
is difficult to establish or erosion rapid. Seeding of temporary fast-
growing grasses is most desirable when final grading cannot be done until
a later date and climatic conditions permit.  Sod often is used as a covering
in critical areas susceptible to erosion.

    Limiting the areal extent of soils disturbed at any one time is a usable
mechanism for minimizing  erosion.  It can be achieved by planning and
carrying out the job  so that as work progresses existing vegetation is removed
only on  that area of soil  surface essential to immediate work activities.
Construction activities are  completed on each exposed area and revegetation
accomplished as rapidly as feasible.

-------
                               -6-
    Solid wastes should be collected at the site and removed for
disposal in authorized disposal areas. Frequent garbage removal
is essential,  Any useful materials can be salvaged or recycled.
Often,  borrow pits, or excavations can be filled with inert solid
wastes.

    Runoff of construction chemicals resulting from paints,  cleaning
solvents, concrete curing compounds, and petroleum products, can
be largely restricted  by sediment control measures as many of these
materials are carried by sediment particles.  Good "housekeeping"
procedures such as proper disposal of empty  containers, prompt
cleanup of accidental  spills,  and neutralization or deactivation of
excess chemicals and wash waters should minimize runoff of the
remaining materials.

Information Sou roes

    Nonpoint  source pollution control practices discussed above in
summary form are described in more detail in the following
publications ?

    "Processes, Procedures, and Methods to Control Pollution
    Resulting From All Construction Activity" EPA 430/9-73-007,
    October 1973

    "Comparative Costs of Erosion and Sediment Control,
    Construction Activities"  EPA 430/9-73-016, July 1973

    "Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and
    Implementation" EPA R2-72-015, August 1972

    Additional data regarding design of structures, specifications for
vegetative practices,  instructions for installation of  surface pro-
tective coverings, and other useful measures are available in
numerous published standards and specifications, manuals,  hand-
books, or guides.  They are generally prepared and issued in local
areas by States, Counties, or Conservation Districts,  with the
assistance  of the U. S. Soil Conservation Service.
4

-------
                 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
               AGRICULTURAL NONPOINT SOURCES
                       WATER POLLUTION
    Agricultural nonpoint sources are a broad category covering all crop
and animal production activities.  Crop production includes both
irrigated and non-irrigated production, such as row crops,  close
grown crops, orchards and vineyards, and fallow land temporarily
out of production.  Animal production includes such  systems as pasture
and rangeland grazing, semiconfined feeding and grazing, and con-
centrated animal feeding  operations.

                         Introduction

    This guidance  is intended to provide information regarding the
control of pollution from  a agricultural nonpoint sources, and to
supplement information regarding the control of agricultural discharges
regulated under the requirements of NPDES.  Agricultural production
activities  provides, on a  national scale, significant sources of pollutants
which reach both surface and ground waters. These may be either
point sources or nonpoint sources,  or combinations of the two.

               Description of Agricultural Activities

    Agricultural nonpoint sources are the crop and animal production
systems that result in diffuse runoff,  seepage, or percolation of
pollutants to the surface and ground waters.  There are a number of
different activities within each of the systems that may cause water
pollution.   The runoff, seepage or percolation of pollutants generated
by the activities are strongly dependent on climatic events such as rain-
fall and snowmelt. In general,  they  are intermittent and  do not represent
a continuous discharge.   The nature of the pollutants depends on the
particular activities underway at the time of the climatic events.  Both
the nature and amount of  pollutants are also dependent on other factors
such as soil types, topography, crop and animal types, and crop and
animal production methods.

Crop Production

    There are five general categories of activities associated with crop
production which can produce the potential for nonpoint source pollution:

    1.  The disturbance of the soil by tillage or compaction by
machinery.

    2.  The alteration of natural vegetative  patterns by substituting
crop plants for natural vegetation or leaving the soil without vegetative
cover.

-------
                               -2-

    3.  The increase in available nutrients, over the quantity available
through natural cycles, by the application of fertilizers.

    4.  The introduction of chemical compounds  not found in significant
quantities under natural conditions such as by the application of
pesticides.

    5,  The application of surface or ground waters for the purpose of
irrigating crops.

Animal Production
    There are three general categories of activities associated with
animal production which can produce the potential for nonpoint source
pollution:

    1.  Concentration of animals  (and their wastes) in a particular
location for an extended period of time such as at feeding areas.

    2.  Overgrazing of range and pasture lands that removes vegetative
cover from the land.

    3.  Concentration of animals instreams or along stream banks
in such numbers as to cause disturbance of the stream bottoms  or banks,
or result in direct  deposit of manure into streams.

                    Identification of Pollutants
    Six general types of nonpoint source pollutants that may result from
activities associated with agricultural production systems are:

    1.  Sediment:  Sediments, by volume, are the most serious
pollutants resulting from agricultural production.  They include prin-
cipally mineral fragments resulting from the erosion of soils but may
also include crop debris and animal wastes. Sediments can  smother
organisms in water bodies by forming bottom blankets,  interfere with
the photosynthetic processes by reducing light penetration,  and act as
carriers of nutrients and pesticides. Deposits also may fill reservoirs
and hinder navigation.

    2.  Nutrients:   Nutrients, above the  natural background  levels of an
area may result from fertilizer applications and animal wastes. Soluble
nutrients may reach surface and ground water through runoff, seepage,
and percolation. Ions may be adsorbed on soil particles and reach surface
water through sedimentation processes. Nutrients may also reach surface
water by direct washoff of animal wastes and recently applied fertilizer.

-------
                              -3-
Excessive nutrients can lead to imbalance in the natural nutrient cycles
and cause eutrophication. In some cases, excessive nutrients can be
a health hazard.

    3.  Pesticides:  Pesticides which are applied in the agricultural
production unit may be insoluble or soluble.  The entrance of
pesticides into the surface or ground waters follows approximately
the same  patterns as nutrients. Pesticides may cause  acute
toxicity problems in the water bodies or insidious toxicity problems
through the entire food chain.

    4.  Organic Materials:  Animal wastes  and crop debris are the
principal  organic pollutants that result from agricultural production.
They may reach surface waters through direct washoff,
or, in their soluble  form, reach both surface and ground waters
through runoff, seepage or percolation. The organic materials place
an oxygen demand on the receiving waters during their decomposition.
In addition,  they may lead to other problems such as tastes,  odors,
color,  and nutrient enrichment.

    5.  Salinity (TDS):  The necessity of leaching to remove,  or prevent
the damaging accumulation of salts in the root zone of  plants has the
potential of inducing subsequent quality problems in both surface and
ground waters if agricultural waters are not properly managed. Percol-
ating water may reach ground water through further deep percolation,
or move laterally into surface water bodies. The problem becomes
more pronounced when the applied irrigation water  initially contains
dissolved solids which will become more concentrated as the
plants remove water for their use. Severity of pollution depends not
only on the nature of the receiving waters but also on the nature of
the uses of the receiving waters.

    6.  Microorganisms: Any potential disease-causing micro-
organisms (pathogens) in water are a matter of concern to the health
and safety of the water users.  Animal wastes are the principal source
of pathogenic microorganisms resulting from agricultural production.
Pathogens reach the water bodies through the same routings as
the animal wastes.

        Basis For  Best Management Practices Development

    Best Management Practices for agricultural  production are the
most practical and  effective measure or combination of measures,  which
when applied to the agricultural management unit, will prevent or reduce
the generation of pollutants to a level compatible with water quality goals.
They often enhance the productivity of the soil as well  as control pollution.

-------
    Because of the variability in production methods, crops and
animals, soil types, topography, climate, etc.,  the BMP for any specific
agricultural management unit or area will vary.  The selection  of Best
Management  Practices for a particular agricultural management unit or
area is a complex process. Any measure or combination of measures
applied to an agricultural management unit or area which will achieve
water quality goals is a potential BMP. However, the measures are  •            *
generally the type that are incorporated into a soil and water con-
servation plan as developed by a landowner or land user, with the
assistance  of a conservation district and/or the Soil Conservation  Service,
Extension Service, Forest Service,  and others.                                 f

    The principal emphasis should be placed on measures that will
prevent or  control the runoff, seepage or percolation of pollutants
from crop or animal production management units.  Preventive measures
must be fully integrated  into the total production management
system of the agricultural management units. In essence, the soils,
nutrients and pesticides  should be kept on the land where they perform
their intended agricultural function.

    Because of the widespread nature of sediment runoff, erosion control
measures should be a principal means of controlling pollution from              M
each agricultural management unit.  Control of erosion not only will prevent    •
soils from  leaving the land, but also will materially reduce the nutrients        ^
and pesticides that reach the nation's waters adsorbed  to soil particles.
Where necessary, to further prevent or reduce the entrance of sediments
into water bodies, supplemental measures such as debris and sediment
retention basins should be utilized.

    In cases where excess amounts of nutrients,  pesticides and animal wastes
cause particular problems in surface or ground waters, additional control
measures may be necessary. These measures might relate, for example,
to the application (timing and amount) of fertilizers  and pesticides, the
prevention of the concentration of animals, and the collection and adequate
disposal of the animal wastes.  Salinity buildup resulting from irrigation
must be analyzed in terms of the particular problem with subsequent  develop-    t
ment of appropriate measures.

           Description of Prevention and Reduction Measures

    Measures which can  be applied to an agricultural management  unit            j
to prevent or reduce pollutants from reaching surface or ground waters
can be generally classified into four  categories.   They are: (1)  structural
measures,  (2) conservation cropping systems and animal management
systems,  (3) quantitative and qualitative management of cropping system
inputs,  (4) vegetative measures.
                                                                             i

-------
                                -5-
    Structural measures generally involve some physical method designed
to reduce erosion or prevent sediment runoff.  They include such things
as barriers applied at the source  such as terraces, conveyance  systems
to enhance non-erodable flows  such as waterways and drop structures,
and catchment systems for the final clarification such as debris basins.
Off-stream watering points,  controlled access watering points at water
bodies, diversions around feeding areas, and manure trapping basins
are considered to be structural measures.

    Cropping systems and animal  management systems involve the spacial
and sequential arrangement of  crop plant and animal pop-
ulations.  The arrangement of crops on a field such as strip cropping,
crop rotation such as sod-forming grass rotation systems, and tillage
methods such as minimum tillage can significantly reduce pollutant trans-
port.  Control of animal populations so as to prevent overgrazing or the
concentration of animals in particular locations "can reduce erosion,
sediment runoff,  and the runoff of concentrated animal wastes.

    Inputs into cropping systems which are not efficiently utilized can
become potential pollutants.  Nutrient and pesticide applications  should
be matched to the immediate needs of the agricultural production
systems. The timing of the applications  should take into consideration
external hydrologic forces.  The efficient use of irrigation water can
materially reduce the salinity buildup problems associated with  runoff,
seepage,  and percolation of the water not utilized by the plants.

    Vegetative covering on bare, or exposed soils is any crop planted
solely to prevent, or control erosion and sediment runoff.  It can be
used during the winter months,  between regular crops during the growing
season,  or where denuded areas have resulted from  overgrazing or
some other activity.  The vegetative  cover protects the bare ground
from the erosive energy of falling rain and flowing runoff water  and filters
out sediment actually being transported  in the runoff water leaving the site.

                      Information Sources

    The prevention and reduction measures outlined in the foregoing are
generally described in "Methods and  Practices for Controlling Water
Pollution from Agricultural Nonpoint Sources, " EPA-430/9-73-015.  Oct 1973.
Data on control of dust is presented in "investigation 01 Fugitive Dust,
Volume 1: Sources, Emissions, and Control" EPA-450/3-74-036a
June, 1974, Specific information on the application of the measures for
agricultural nonpoint sources and water quality management is contained in
"Control of Water Pollution from. Cropland, Volume  I " USD A, ARS
and EPA, ORD.  November 1975. "Interim Report on Loading Functions
For Assessment of Water Pollution from Nonpoint Sources" EPA; ORD.

-------
                                -6-
November,  1975 provides data for assessing the problem.  Information
on specific aspects of agricultural nonpoint  source pollutants and their
control can be found in research reports of  EPA,  USDA, and other Federal
agencies, State and local agencies,  colleges and universities,  and agricultural
trade associations and in grazing and range management documents by these
groups.

    Design information on various conservation methods can be
obtained from Soil Conservation Service handbooks. Specific infor-
mation on particular  locations can be obtained from SCS Field Offices,
the Extension Service, soil and water conservation district offices, and
other informed agencies and groups.
                                         ft US GOVERNMFHT POINTING nmrt 1Q7»_260-380/17

-------